NationStates Jolt Archive

In theory, no it shouldn't. People should have the right to free speech.

However there's so much guilt about the holocaust in Western nations that in practice, it's never going to seen as free speech, just race hate, which, of course, it is.

Stupidity should be a capital offense.

Then again, there would only be a few hundred people left in the world, and no one could be sure that they would be one of them. ;)

Stupidity should be a capital offense.

Then again, there would only be a few hundred people left in the world, and no one could be sure that they would be one of them. ;)

A few hundred? You overestimated that number by a few hundred.

Why do you assume the holocaust to be a real event? Because a government said so? No, you know about it because it is well documented and can be supported with evidence before any court.
Glad that’s established. So, again, what good would come from criminalising Holocaust denial?

I’m not so sure. There is no way that a Flat Earther or holocaust denier doe not know any better.
You believe everyone who denies the Holocaust happened or believes the world is flat is lying through their teeth? Wow.

A horse is a mammal.
A horse is not a human.
Therefore, not all humans are mammals.

:confused:
Way to ignore the point about holocaust denial outside of anti-semitism I made in post#200 of this thread.

Way to ignore the point about holocaust denial outside of anti-semitism I made in post#200 of this thread.

You seem to be acting on the weird assumption that I have an obligation to read and respond to every post that disagrees with mine.

I pointed out that Dyakovo's argument was logically fallacious. What does your post #200 have to do with that?

In and of itself? I doubt it. I remember in grade 11 my English teacher mentioned that some people deny the holocaust because they're not willing to admit that human beings would commit such atrocities, so it's not always about anti-semitism.

Yes, some people don't like to believe that horrible things happen. But Holocaust denial has historically associated with extreme right-wing groups, and in its theory it tends towards explicit anti-Semitism--if the Holocaust didn't happen, why does everyone think it does? Because of the Jews and their plots, of course.

Heck, who knows, maybe some people just can't accept that such things happened to the Jews like how some people can't accept that a certain family member died.

Yeah, maybe. But generally they aren't willing to write books and invent conspiracy theories as a consequence.

So really, the assumption that holocaust denial is about anti-semitism is questionable at best. But even if we were to grant that assumption, does that mean it IS anti-semitism in itself?

This is an irrelevant distinction.

Only in their own homes, where that has no consequences. But publicly spreading bullshit is an entirely different matter.

No, it isn't. One should have the right to say whatever one decides to in public, just as others have the right to analyse it and pass judgements upon it.

You seem to be acting on the weird assumption that I have an obligation to read and respond to every post that disagrees with mine.

I pointed out that Dyakovo's argument was logically fallacious. What does your post #200 have to do with that?
Fair enough, but my post already pointed out ways in which holocaust denial isn't exclusive to anti-semitism, and it seemed like you avoided that one and instead went after the easier-to-refute one.

You seem to be acting on the weird assumption that I have an obligation to read and respond to every post that disagrees with mine.

I pointed out that Dyakovo's argument was logically fallacious. What does your post #200 have to do with that?

Actually you didn't refute mine at all...

I said that they do not equal each other.

I said that they do not equal each other.

You're equivocating.

In mathematics, equality is symmetric: if a = b, then b = a. But in casual usage in a context like this one--"Holocaust denial equals anti-Semitism"--what is meant is that Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic, not that every case of anti-Semitism is also Holocaust denial, or every anti-Semite denies the Holocaust.

Pointing out an anti-Semite who doesn't deny the Holocaust proves nothing of relevance.

Ok, first things first, when making the previous post I didn't know the one I'm responding to now had been posted.

But Holocaust denial has historically associated with extreme right-wing groups
Note what you said, "associated with". These ideology labels you talk about, like "extreme right-wing" have a questionable amount of meaning, (especially when support for Israel is considered "right-wing" and opposition to Israel is associated with anti-semitism) they randomly associate all kinds of separate views on separate subjects with each other at the same time. Some views I have are associated with "the right" and some views I have are associated with "the left"; (albeit probably more of them with the left, but nonetheless I still sometimes give the impression that I'm "right-wing" when talking about certain subjects) but none of these are "right-wing" or "left-wing" views in and of themselves, because when it comes to the political spectrum, one has to wonder what it's even measuring; traditionalism? Laissez-faire? You can't even get a consistent answer about it.

Yes, you could say the "average" holocaust denier may be anti-semitic, but this doesn't take into account that some holocaust deniers are unwilling to admit that humans can commit such atrocities, and doesn't take into account that there are other reasons we might not be aware of. When creating an exception to a human right so fundamental as free speech, it's not enough to say that views "associated" with such and such other views (because of the "majority" of those who hold such views, as opposed to looking at it on an individual basis) should have the coercion of law against them. Though frankly, in exceptions to free speech I don't know what standards would justify it...

EDIT: And as was already pointed out, what about denials of all the other genocides?

Note what you said, "associated with". These ideology labels you talk about, like "extreme right-wing" have a questionable amount of meaning, they randomly associate all kinds of separate views on separate subjects with each other at the same time.

"Extreme right" has a specific meaning beyond just "extremely right-wing", and I'm using it in that sense. It refers to fascists, Nazis, white-supremacist hate groups, etc.

Yes, you could say the "average" holocaust denier may be anti-semitic, just like the "average person" isn't a multi-billionaire, but this doesn't take into account that some holocaust deniers are unwilling to admit that humans can commit such atrocities, and doesn't take into account that there are other reasons we might not be aware of.

I'm not talking about punishing some person who can't believe that the Holocaust happened, and says as much in conversations. I'm talking about publishing denialist materials. That generally requires more of an ideological commitment than mere psychological denial.

When creating an exception to a human right so fundamental as free speech, it's not enough to say that views "associated" with such and such other views should have the coercion of law against them.

But free speech isn't "fundamental" in that sense. Denying you the right to publish a book on a certain topic does not violate your dignity as a human being.

I'm not talking about punishing some person who can't believe that the Holocaust happened, and says as much in conversations. I'm talking about publishing denialist materials. That generally requires more of an ideological commitment than mere psychological denial.
Ok, fair enough, I somewhat misinterpreted your point, but still, people have the right to argue whatever they believe; who is the government to tell people what they can and can't argue? What about publishing creationist materials? It seems like most who would want to argue creationism would normally have some kind of religious agenda, should that then be illegal?

EDIT: And by the way I edited the previous post, could you take a look at the changes?

Stupidity should be a capital offense.

Then again, there would only be a few hundred people left in the world, and no one could be sure that they would be one of them. ;)

Yeah, but how are all those cryptographers and cosmologists going to FEED themselves?

Smart people actually benefit from having stupid people on the planet with them, and shouldn't whine so much.

Stupidity should be a capital offense.

You think humanity should be extinct?

You think humanity should be extinct?

The imputation of that is even more negative than Kat's comment (yeah, yeah, I know it's a joke)

She sez "all but a hundred people on earth are stupid" and you have to go that further step and go "no no we're all stupid."

Every human being is stupid ... relative to WHAT or WHO ? Mice ??

EDIT: And as was already pointed out, what about denials of all the other genocides?

I've responded to this already: those cases that meet the same criteria (substantive bigoted subtext, clear and indisputable scholarly consensus) should have the same measures applied against them.

Ok, fair enough, I somewhat misinterpreted your point, but still, people have the right to argue whatever they believe; who is the government to tell people what they can and can't argue?

The government decides in general what is permitted and prohibited. What's different here?

What about publishing creationist materials? It seems like most who would want to argue creationism would normally have some kind of religious agenda, should that then be illegal?

Creationism doesn't have the effect of marginalizing or excluding anyone. It's just stupidity. Mere stupidity should not be prohibited.

The government decides in general what is permitted and prohibited. What's different here?
That the government is prohibiting a certain position from being argued. Why should we PROHIBIT any publication from being released? It's not like they'll be forcing people to read it, and if people who read it just out of curiosity are automatically convinced, then that's a problem in itself.

Creationism doesn't have the effect of marginalizing or excluding anyone.
What about those of us who don't follow religious dogma but are affected by its influence?

It's just stupidity.
Not necessarily on the part of those who argue it; again, sometimes it might be about pushing their agenda.

You think humanity should be extinct?

Not extinct as much as completely controlled. Like we do with feline and canine populations in our cities, when they go out of control, we exterminate a few.
I sound genocidal.:eek: By all means, pay no attention to me and this last statement.:p

That the government is prohibiting a certain position from being argued. Why should we PROHIBIT any publication from being released? It's not like they'll be forcing people to read it, and if people who read it just out of curiosity are automatically convinced, then that's a problem in itself.

The problem is not that people will be converted. The problem is the intolerant social environment it fosters.

What about those of us who don't follow religious dogma but are affected by its influence?

Hate rhetoric against atheists should be restricted. Expressing religious views--however absurd--should not be.

Not necessarily on the part of those who argue it; again, sometimes it might be about pushing their agenda.

So?

Hate rhetoric against atheists should be restricted. Expressing religious views--however absurd--should not be.

So Fred Phelps should be restricted? :(

The guy's a total asshole, but he's great for shits and giggles. How anyone can be such an extremist or such a loser is beyond me, but he's so fun to laugh at. :p

So Fred Phelps should be restricted? :(

Easy question. Yes.

The guy's a total asshole, but he's great for shits and giggles.

Bigotry might at times be so ridiculous as to be funny, but its effects remain quite serious and worthy of concern.

Easy question. Yes.

:(

Bigotry might at times be so ridiculous as to be funny, but its effects remain quite serious and worthy of concern.

Oh, come on, the man only has about 100 followers, most of them blood relatives. He's hardly worthy of concern, or even attention (except to ridicule, of course :)).

Oh, come on, the man only has about 100 followers, most of them blood relatives.

And constant press coverage. And his tactics quite obviously add to a climate of social intolerance against gays.

The problem is not that people will be converted. The problem is the intolerant social environment it fosters.
What do you mean by "intolerant social environment" and how do you believe that allowing holocaust denial will foster it?

Hate rhetoric against atheists should be restricted.
In a society where atheists are one of the most distrusted minorities, demonized, repeatedly associated with Stalin and Mao, portrayed as evil, obnoxious, immoral, whiny leeches, etc... good luck enforcing that one. o.o

I'd rather have them express what they think of atheists, (though I'm still not sure whether I qualify as atheist or agnostic) than be forced to hold back, so that I can openly rebutall it. Though, to be fair, at least you're being consistent...

Hate rhetoric against atheists should be restricted. Expressing religious views--however absurd--should not be.

Oh no Soheran! This is terribly inconsistent.

Religious beliefs have all sorts of "subtexts" as you call them. There is no greater force supporting bigotry in the world than the attraction of an unquestionable truth, religious truth. In religious bigotry you see the exact same "denial," refusing to accept well-established historical facts ... and the exact same "marginalization" and "deligitimization" follows from it.

Not to mention that the holocaust deniers can simply found a religion which holds HD as one of it's tenets. What would you do then?

And constant press coverage. And his tactics quite obviously add to a climate of social intolerance against gays.
So does religion. So, should that be regulated then?

So does religion. So, should that be regulated then?

I think religion should be regulated somehow. The worst crimes this world has seen had almost all been committed in the name of a god.

Please, don´t stone me to death...

Oh no Soheran! This is terribly inconsistent.

Religious beliefs have all sorts of "subtexts" as you call them. There is no greater force supporting bigotry in the world than the attraction of an unquestionable truth, religious truth. In religious bigotry you see the exact same "denial," refusing to accept well-established historical facts ... and the exact same "marginalization" and "deligitimization" follows from it.

Not to mention that the holocaust deniers can simply found a religion which holds HD as one of it's tenets. What would you do then?
Hmm... that's another interesting point... especially in the middle paragraph; I mean, the "ten commandments" juxtapose polytheism with murder... wouldn't that qualify as rhetoric against polytheists?

And constant press coverage. And his tactics quite obviously add to a climate of social intolerance against gays.

On the contrary, I would say his actions make patriots and moderate people who believe in the decorum of a funeral, realize that they have common ground with gays.

I would restrict some of his protests. But only because of the sense of intimidation the protests impart to the actual people there. That is, I would let him publish everything he says in a book or on a website, but NOT let him force people to see and hear that stuff by physically approaching funerals.

I think religion should be regulated somehow.

Whereas I wouldn't go that far. I'd permit religion in private, I'd let it be published, and I'd let religious principles be cited in political debate.

In fact, beyond the "separation of church and state" principle we have already, I wouldn't pass any law to prevent religious principles being put into law!

We simply have to fight that fair and square.

The worst crimes this world has seen had almost all been committed in the name of a god.

Well, some of them. To me, both the urge for unquestioning belief in something, and the urge to silence or persecute others have a common cause. Ignorance and intolerance support each other!
Religious belief might make it easier to dehumanize another, preparatory to persecuting them ... but it's not the cause of that.

Also, was the holocaust committed in the name of God? Not really.

On the contrary, I would say his actions make patriots and moderate people who believe in the decorum of a funeral, realize that they have common ground with gays.
Agreed. I get the impression that it's an act, but it certainly helps to challenge our classifications and ideology labels when the same group is both unpatriotic and anti-gay at the same time...

What do you mean by "intolerant social environment"

How can you demand that I respond to every one of your posts, while at the same time failing yourself to read my posts?

(Sorry. But to the extent that the words are not clear in themselves, I think I specify my meaning sufficiently elsewhere. See especially my longer replies to No-Bugs Ho-Bot.)

and how do you believe that allowing holocaust denial will foster it?

Well, to be technical about it... I don't, not in this society, where Jews are not marginalized at all socially or politically. Prohibiting Holocaust denial would be just a symbolic act: part of a declaration that our society will not tolerate hate speech for the reasons I have mentioned.

I'd rather have them express what they think of atheists, (though I'm still not sure whether I qualify as atheist or agnostic) than be forced to hold back, so that I can openly rebutall it.

That's a tactical question. I think you have a point when it comes to at least some forms of anti-atheist and anti-gay prejudice, insofar as people still advance real arguments against them that reflect social beliefs that should be challenged. But contentless hate rhetoric--like that of, say, Fred Phelps--should still be restricted.

Religious beliefs have all sorts of "subtexts" as you call them. There is no greater force supporting bigotry in the world than the attraction of an unquestionable truth, religious truth.

That's not a subtext, that's a consequence.

In religious bigotry you see the exact same "denial," refusing to accept well-established historical facts ... and the exact same "marginalization" and "deligitimization" follows from it.

Religious bigotry should be treated the same as any other kind of bigotry.

(Well, maybe not. Religion is perhaps worthy of special consideration insofar as it impacts a fundamental element of a person's life. Perhaps we should opt for a compromise--public speech within a religion should be unrestricted, but public speech that attempts to address society at large should have the same restrictions as everything else.)

So does religion. So, should that be regulated then?

Possibly.

On the contrary, I would say his actions make patriots and moderate people who believe in the decorum of a funeral, realize that they have common ground with gays.

I doubt it. They didn't give a shit until he began targeting military funerals, and the rhetoric there is all about "disrespecting the family" and the veterans.

Furthermore, he helps the "moderate" homophobes by presenting himself as an extreme alternative.

Whereas I wouldn't go that far. I'd permit religion in private, I'd let it be published, and I'd let religious principles be cited in political debate.

In fact, beyond the "separation of church and state" principle we have already, I wouldn't pass any law to prevent religious principles being put into law!

We simply have to fight that fair and square.



Well, some of them. To me, both the urge for unquestioning belief in something, and the urge to silence or persecute others have a common cause. Religious belief might make it easier to dehumanize another, preparatory to persecuting them ... but it's not the cause of that.

Also, was the holocaust committed in the name of God? Not really.

Although you have a point on your first argument, I do differ from you on the last part. Granted, the Holocaust was an ethnic crime. But don´t forget that the Jewish population that the Nazi exterminated were practicing Jews. Don´t you think also that behind all the ethnic hate there´s an underlying of hate and fear against the ethnic´s belief system too?

Agreed. I get the impression that it's an act, but it certainly helps to challenge our classifications and ideology labels when the same group is both unpatriotic and anti-gay at the same time...

I agree with almost every word you've put in this thread.

We shouldn't gang up on Soheran, he's putting a surprisingly strong case. I just couldn't keep quiet on that idea that by being religious ideas, they should somehow be protected from the principle which would ban political ones.

Over to you now. :)

We shouldn't gang up on Soheran, he's putting a surprisingly strong case. I just couldn't keep quiet on that idea that by being religious ideas, they should somehow be protected from the principle which would ban political ones.

The example was creationism. Bigoted religious ideas fall under the same principle as everything else--though they do conflict with a counteracting social value (substantive freedom of conscience) in a way that might justify weaker restrictions.

... But don´t forget that the Jewish population that the Nazi exterminated were practicing Jews. ...That is not accurate.

That is not accurate.

They weren´t?

Although you have a point on your first argument, I do differ from you on the last part. Granted, the Holocaust was an ethnic crime. But don´t forget that the Jewish population that the Nazi exterminated were practicing Jews.

I'm not a huge history scholar, but as I understand it Jewishness was all about race for the Nazis. The Catholic church endorsed them and they accepted the endorsement, but the Nazis were really rather secular.

Don´t you think also that behind all the ethnic hate there´s an underlying of hate and fear against the ethnic´s belief system too?

To some extent. Germans after the defeat of the first world war did it pretty tough, there was a sort of collective persecution complex which Hitler played to with the idea of Jewish conspiracy. Hitler was rabidly Nationalist, appealed to that in the people. They needed some explanation for how they'd lost WW1 ... enter conspiracy theory.

But I don't want to touch the idea of an "ethnic belief system." I think I'd rather leave describing Jewish culture to someone who is actually Jewish.

They weren´t?No. At times it was sufficient to have had Jewish grandparents to be counted as a Jew (and even be sent to the camps), regardless of actual religious practice.

I'm not a huge history scholar, but as I understand it Jewishness was all about race for the Nazis. The Catholic church endorsed them and they accepted the endorsement, but the Nazis were really rather secular.



To some extent. Germans after the defeat of the first world war did it pretty tough, there was a sort of collective persecution complex which Hitler played to with the idea of Jewish conspiracy. Hitler was rabidly Nationalist, appealed to that in the people. They needed some explanation for how they'd lost WW1 ... enter conspiracy theory.

But I don't want to touch the idea of an "ethnic belief system." I think I'd rather leave describing Jewish culture to someone who is actually Jewish.

Yeah, and I think we´re digging into a discussion that might turn volatile. Religion and belief systems are topics to thread carefully on.

No. At times it was sufficient to have had Jewish grandparents to be counted as a Jew (and even be sent to the camps), regardless of actual religious practice.

Wow..:( Evil by association...:(
(Not saying the Jews were evil, let me make that clear.)

I think I'd rather leave describing Jewish culture to someone who is actually Jewish.Are you insane? You'll never get an objective description of Judaism from a Jew.

Wow..:( Evil by association...:(

The Nazis were anti-Semitic for racial reasons, not religious ones. So anyone racially Jewish was persecuted, regardless of religious belief.

No. At times it was sufficient to have had Jewish grandparents to be counted as a Jew (and even be sent to the camps), regardless of actual religious practice.

You may want to check up on that one. One can get away with 1 Jewish Grandparent.

Are you insane? You'll never get an objective description of Judaism from a Jew.

Did I say "objective" ?
I did not.
I said I wasn't going to speculate on "ethnic belief systems" of Jews.

It seems you're ready to do that, so don't let me stop you. I don't think the thread has been properly Godwinned yet, despite the subject. :p

The Nazis were anti-Semitic for racial reasons, not religious ones. So anyone racially Jewish was persecuted, regardless of religious belief.

And after facts like this one, how can some people deny the Holocaust is beyond me...

Are you insane? You'll never get an objective description of Judaism from a Jew.

Now that's a bunch of bullshit! I should know. My Best Man at my Wedding is Jewish and has explained Jewish Culture quite nicely. You sir, need to grow the fuck up.

I apologize for not reading the thread and for making a relatively generic response.

I don't believe there is any merit or redeeming social value in Holocaust denial and I admit that it can have harmful effects. As arguments regarding free speech go, Holocaust denial pushes the envelope about as far as it can go.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to allow such speech based on first principles. As always, I direct readers to the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And from Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927):
To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

No, it isn't. Saying it might be. Publishing it is not. Not many people in our society have the opportunity to regularly publish things. Is everyone else being oppressed? (What about the people before books were commonplace?)
Saying something and publishing something is the same thing. The act is the transfer of your thought or opinion on a subject to others for them to consider and judge it. The only thing that changes is how many people are reached, and you wouldn't say that whispering something is fundamentally different to yelling something, would you?

In London I can go to Hyde Park and rant on, and lots of people will listen to me. If I stand there saying something, am I speaking or am I publishing? And if it is the latter, then why don't many people have the same opportunity? What about spreading something by word of mouth, for that matter? I can reach a lot of people, but I'm not putting pen to paper nor am I yelling stuff in public. Would you propose the person who started the message should be censored?

Similarly, the end of laws against murder is to reach a safe and secure society. Is that paternalistic?
It's a very, very round-about way of looking at it. The end of the law is to make sure I don't get killed. If society was safe but I got killed, the laws didn't serve their purpose, and by extension you would say society wasn't safe afterall.

But my motivation isn't society, it's not everyone else. My motivation is my own desire to continue my existence and my own desire to have capable people survive for long enough to enrich it.

That example works for murder because being murdered is not a question of how to interpret something. Hate speech is. Hateful things can be said about you and you can shrug your shoulders and go your own merry way, while I see difficulties in trying the same when you're the victim of murder. So my motivation is still the same: continue my existence and make it as enjoyable as possible (which includes the non-violation of certain moral principles since they'd diminish my enjoyment and in the long term end my existence). I don't think someone who is bothered enough by hate speech to stop participating in society is a capable individual I could learn or gain anything from, so there goes one thing. The other goes because I myself don't give a shit what others say about me, since I can freely choose who I want to associate with.

So in this case my motivation for wanting the society that outlaws hate speech is basically non-existent.

You're committing the same error people so often accuse socialists of: you're reifying "society." To say that I want a society where people have the capacity to participate fully in public deliberation is nothing more than one aspect of saying that I want every individual within society to be free.
But you're not just assuming that being subjected to hate speech stops you from participation, but also that preventing someone from uttering hate speech would not be limiting the capacity for full participation in public deliberation, not just because you would be doing it in the eyes of the speaker himself, but also because you're presuming that we can accurately distinguish between hate speech and something that is unpopular but true.

You're missing the point. It's not that the material world isn't understandable through reason. It's that coming to rational conclusions, and expressing them, isn't always a good thing in the material world.

A truly rational, honest person will insist that the Earth is round even if someone points a gun at her, because she will recognize that the personal threat to her does not change truth. But who will live longer--her or the person who is perfectly willing to change convictions based on personal convenience?
But that's not the material world. By pointing a gun at her I am imposing my own irrationality on her, I am creating a world in which recognising the shape of the world is a bad thing.

That's the whole point of considering violence a bad thing. Existence itself is pure, it's the same regardless what you think about it. Being irrational will get you hurt, being rational will improve your life. But as soon as you introduce violence all this changes and you create a new incentive system in which irrationality gets you rewarded or at least keeps you intact. And that will lead to people stopping to use their brains, it will lead to people feeling unhappy and unfulfilled and it will produce a society that is bound to failure because no matter how much violence you do to others, existence still remains outside social norms and customs and demands still the same strict rules of reason to be placed on your thought.

Yes. It failed after seventy years.
It failed from day one when it didn't achieve anything it set out to do. Its failure took some time as there were ever more people who could be sucked dry to keep it alive, but it was never in question.

Truth may eventually "come out" in that a society that routinely denies truth cannot survive forever, but that is not good enough.

Right, of course, need never come out at all. The rules of what should be and the rules of what is are very different. They can be united through the rational exercise of free will, but nothing about the material world says that this must happen.
The point is that human beings, if you're being rational about what they need to survive, if you're building a society that will survive, need certain freedoms and rights. If you don't give them these freedoms, your society will be going the way of the USSR. So what is right is necessarily implied by what is true because the true cannot be reached without relying on what is right.

Yes, it is. If there is no public debate, there will be no private debate either. Perhaps a few exceptional people will escape, but the rest won't.
If some people can do it, all people can do it. There is no boundary short of mental retardation I can think of that stops people from deliberating things for themselves.

Of course, if there is no reason to deliberate something, the question is why the debate has to be public in the first place because it's clearly only important for some people.

---and now I've run out of time and need to get to work, goddammit---

NBHB: We shouldn't gang up on Soheran, he's putting a surprisingly strong case. I just couldn't keep quiet on that idea that by being religious ideas, they should somehow be protected from the principle which would ban political ones.

The example was creationism. Bigoted religious ideas fall under the same principle as everything else--though they do conflict with a counteracting social value (substantive freedom of conscience) in a way that might justify weaker restrictions.

The example was creationism, yes, but you extended it to all religious beliefs.

Or at least, that's how I read this:


Hayteria: What about those of us who don't follow religious dogma but are affected by its influence?

Hate rhetoric against atheists should be restricted. Expressing religious views--however absurd--should not be.

I'm just wondering if there is some other principle applying to religious beliefs which makes them somehow more tolerable ?

No, hang on. I see you've answered that already Soheran. You want weaker restrictions!

I wred that at least twice and still missed it. Because it's bizarre!

"Substantive freedom of conscience" is a GOOD thing. And you'd give religious beliefs a break because they "conflict" with it!

Damn right they conflict with it. You're taking the wrong side!

The only thing that changes is how many people are reached,

That's not the difference I'm marking out here at all. The question is whether the prohibition affects your personal freedom. Freedom of conscience--which is of high importance--surely carries with it private freedom of expression: the capacity to express your opinions to your friends and family.

But in no way is a person's freedom of conscience abridged by stopping him or her from publishing a book.

The end of the law is to make sure I don't get killed.

No, it isn't. The law doesn't care about you any different from how it cares about anyone else. That's why its end its society's safety.

If society was safe but I got killed, the laws didn't serve their purpose,

Not fully, but only because you are a member of society.

But my motivation isn't society, it's not everyone else. My motivation is my own desire to continue my existence and my own desire to have capable people survive for long enough to enrich it.

Fine. But you're not the one making laws. And such a selfish basis for law is illegitimate, so if you were making laws you would be violating the principles of political right, and my entire point was to offer a legitimate law to illustrate the point.

Hateful things can be said about you and you can shrug your shoulders and go your own merry way, while I see difficulties in trying the same when you're the victim of murder.

A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Can not a person be apathetic towards his or her death?

So in this case my motivation for wanting the society that outlaws hate speech is basically non-existent.

I don't believe my argument has ever been that "Restricting hate speech will benefit Neu Leonstein personally." I've made the assumption that I am speaking to people who are concerned for the public good.

But you're not just assuming that being subjected to hate speech stops you from participation, but also that preventing someone from uttering hate speech would not be limiting the capacity for full participation in public deliberation,

It wouldn't, because the person would be perfectly capable of expressing non-hate speech opinions.

but also because you're presuming that we can accurately distinguish between hate speech and something that is unpopular but true.

Of course we can. The category of "hate speech" has nothing to do with unpopularity.

That's the whole point of considering violence a bad thing.

It's not violence specifically; it's power. And, yes, that is the whole point of considering power a bad thing.

But as soon as you introduce violence all this changes and you create a new incentive system in which irrationality gets you rewarded or at least keeps you intact.

Precisely, only, again, "power", not (just) violence. That's why having an intolerant society is a bad thing. That's why we should prohibit hate speech that contributes to such a society.

The point is that human beings, if you're being rational about what they need to survive, if you're building a society that will survive, need certain freedoms and rights.

Maybe. But not necessarily the right ones, or to the right degree.

If you don't give them these freedoms, your society will be going the way of the USSR. So what is right is necessarily implied by what is true because the true cannot be reached without relying on what is right.

No. Right mandates equality: law must be applied with an eye to the public good. Right also mandates democracy: law must be legislated by those subject to it. Prudence perhaps mandates certain kinds of free expression, and effectively keeping any oppressed members of society down in one way or another.

This was one of Marx's crucial errors: he assumed a natural tendency toward the ideal. But nothing of the sort need be.

If some people can do it, all people can do it. There is no boundary short of mental retardation I can think of that stops people from deliberating things for themselves.

We develop rational, critical minds most effectively in response to others. An exceptional few of us may have such innate skill that it comes to us without such exposure. But there's no reason to believe that most people are like that.

"Substantive freedom of conscience" is a GOOD thing. And you'd give religious beliefs a break because they "conflict" with it!

I wrote that badly. I'm not sure what I was thinking grammatically. You misunderstood me as a consequence.

"Bigoted religious ideas fall under the same principle as everything else--though they do conflict with a counteracting social value (substantive freedom of conscience) in a way that might justify weaker restrictions."

"They" here refers to the restrictions, not to the bigoted religious ideas. The point is that if we squash religious bigotry we interfere with something that seems somewhat more fundamental than some historian's view that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here. I don't know.

Now that's a bunch of bullshit! I should know. My Best Man at my Wedding is Jewish and has explained Jewish Culture quite nicely. You sir, need to grow the fuck up.And you need a non-Jewish opinion.

And you need a non-Jewish opinion.

Who knows the culture best? Jews themselves. So shut it bigot.

BTW: I have done research on Jewis Culture myself.

I wrote that badly. I'm not sure what I was thinking grammatically. You misunderstood me as a consequence.

"Bigoted religious ideas fall under the same principle as everything else--though they do conflict with a counteracting social value (substantive freedom of conscience) in a way that might justify weaker restrictions."

"They" here refers to the restrictions, not to the bigoted religious ideas. The point is that if we squash religious bigotry we interfere with something that seems somewhat more fundamental than some historian's view that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here. I don't know.

Ah! I was thinking "the priest has power over the conscience of the believer, but our belief in freedom of conscience can cope with that and further restrictions are not required" ... which might just work in light of the diminishing power of religion. But the less restrictions in light of that wasn't making sense, at all.

I still disagree with you on the thread subject, but at least your position on religion doesn't seem wildly at odds any more.

Who knows the culture best? Jews themselves. So shut it

Awww ... he was about to say rude and ignorant things about Jews. Then we could have ripped him a new one. With reasoned and informed rebuttals of course.

Awww ... he was about to say rude and ignorant things about Jews. Then we could have ripped him a new one. With reasoned and informed rebuttals of course.

He's an anti-semite that logic will never sway.

How can you demand that I respond to every one of your posts, while at the same time failing yourself to read my posts?

(Sorry. But to the extent that the words are not clear in themselves, I think I specify my meaning sufficiently elsewhere. See especially my longer replies to No-Bugs Ho-Bot.)
There's your problem. The post you expected me to read was not even said to me, it was a reply to someone else. However, the posts I expected you to read were replies to you, and, as such, said to you.

That said, though, if you point specifically to the numbers of the posts (or better yet excerpts from the posts) where you supposedly made clearer what you were referring to I'll probably read it.

I think religion should be regulated somehow. The worst crimes this world has seen had almost all been committed in the name of a god.

Please, don´t stone me to death...

The Holocaust was committed in the name of race and the Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution in the name of communist ideology. The two worst genocides in history not even linked with religion.

The Holocaust was committed in the name of race and the Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution in the name of communist ideology. The two worst genocides in history not even linked with religion.

And, presumably, the severity of an atrocity is determined solely by the body count? I can only commend your logic. Gosh, I do wish I was able to look upon things with your perspective.

The Holocaust was committed in the name of race and the Great Leap Forward/ Cultural Revolution in the name of communist ideology. The two worst genocides in history not even linked with religion.

Already been addressed and answered.
The Nazis were anti-Semitic for racial reasons, not religious ones. So anyone racially Jewish was persecuted, regardless of religious belief.
Thank you.

There's your problem. The post you expected me to read was not even said to me, it was a reply to someone else. However, the posts I expected you to read were replies to you, and, as such, said to you.

I don't think it's unreasonable for Soheran to expect you to read all of his posts, whoever they were addressed to. Of course he should read yours if they're addressed to him.

Soheran is the only person who has tried to defend at length the minority opinion in this case (around 15% by the poll,) and has replied to you and I, as we've both engaged in extended debate. In my case, I think this is the fourth day of the debate! And he's replied to a few others, as is polite.*

You could cut Soheran some slack.

I'm now going to take my own advice ("don't gang up") and cut back my last post so it is less demanding of a reply.

*EDIT: How could I not mention Neu Leonstein? How do you think you'd do, debating me, NL and Soheran simultaneously? And I think there were others before who went a few rounds.

And, presumably, the severity of an atrocity is determined solely by the body count?

You have a better way?

Index it against the population at the time, perhaps. Or count rapes as one-half a killing. And how about torture, or destroying of homes. Displacements. People who felt bad about it but weren't really affected personally. Puppy dogs losing their tails. Or just "you reckon" perhaps?

Gosh, I do wish I was able to look upon things with your perspective.

So what is your perspective?

No, it shouldn't. Everyone has the right to be a numbnuts. Most of just choose not to.

Those that do, they are what we call the "butt of jokes"

It should definitely not be banned, not only for free speech reasons, but also if we ban denial of the holocaust it implies that we holocaust supporters are so incompetent at arguing we had to ban the opposing position.
So, if they can't argue by law, and we can't argue against them (either because of the above or simply because there's nobody to argue against anymore), and we are making the claim (which for anyone not familiar with the rules of logic, means they win by default if we can't prove the claim), then by banning holocaust denial we admit that it is right.
Only by letting them argue can we argue against them and reveal how horribly thought out their position is.
By the way, even if you can come up for a criticism for my argument so far, it doesn't change the fact that some holocaust denier will think of the exact same argument.

(which for anyone not familiar with the rules of logic, means they win by default if we can't prove the claim)

The rules of logic do not determine who wins or loses an argument. Failure to prove a case does not constitute a proof of the contrary case.

The rules of debate I think you mean.

Otherwise, fine. Welcome to the majority view.

But in no way is a person's freedom of conscience abridged by stopping him or her from publishing a book.
And freedom of conscience (which I think you need to explain to me because it could mean so many things as to be meaningless) is my only personal freedom?

As far as I can see, your argumentation could be used to justify any censorship. People would be free to think what they want and express it privately, but as soon as the wrong thought enters public domain you can go to jail. But surely there is some right to free speech beyond talking into my pillow.

And such a selfish basis for law is illegitimate, so if you were making laws you would be violating the principles of political right, and my entire point was to offer a legitimate law to illustrate the point.
And the legitimacy of law is a whole different animal. You still haven't been able to convince me that democracy represents anything more than majority rule or that it can actually create a legitimacy for its decisions.

It stands to reason that everyone makes a decision on what should or shouldn't be law based on selfish reasons. I value things like my life, others might value complying with whatever they imagine to be god's law or notions of complete equality. All of these are supported because they make the supporter happy and so none of these is non-selfish and none of these derives any legitimacy from the way its proponents reached the decision.

Anything we can figure out with regards to legitimacy we have to draw from the content itself. And in that case it doesn't matter whether it was unanimously decided or imposed by a lunatic dictator.

A difference in degree, perhaps, but not in kind. Can not a person be apathetic towards his or her death?
Certainly can, they can even be actively seeking it. But would you support laws banning euthanasia?

Euthanasia does involve killing people. The difference lies in the way the victim sees the act, and I think the same principle can apply to hate speech. You wouldn't be putting rappers into jail for saying the n-word because no one is taking offense. So whether or not something ends up being hate speech worthy of banning ends up being a question of how the victim perceives it, not content - and you've just established a right not to be offended.

It wouldn't, because the person would be perfectly capable of expressing non-hate speech opinions.
And everyone in Burma is free to express non-government critical opinions. Either someone is free to participate fully or they're not.

Of course we can. The category of "hate speech" has nothing to do with unpopularity.
To use your model of public deliberation:

Professor X says "blacks are stupid". Reverend Y says "no, they're not". X says "but I did IQ tests". Y says "you faked that." There's debate, research, maybe a vote and in the end you get something out. That something is unlikely to be true, right or rational, but it's the product of free public discourse.

Now with hate speech laws X just goes straight to jail, not collecting $200 and you've ended public deliberation before it ever started. It's the equivalent of the sort of self-control of the mind that Orwell wrote about in 1984, where certain subjects are just immediately dismissed before thoughts are even formulated.

It's not violence specifically; it's power. And, yes, that is the whole point of considering power a bad thing.
There is only one form of power, and that's violence. Any other form relies on the voluntary participation of the other person and therefore isn't power any more than being a masochist is being a victim.

Precisely, only, again, "power", not (just) violence. That's why having an intolerant society is a bad thing. That's why we should prohibit hate speech that contributes to such a society.
Intolerance can't be universally against you. There will always be someone somewhere who will take you for what you are, especially since "intolerant society" just means "society with a high number of intolerant individuals in it". There's an endless list of exceptions and those will be the people to talk to.

Yes, that's harder than if everyone loved you. But no one is ever universally loved, and no one can seriously advocate a society that could make this the case. Regardless of how social relations are organised some people just don't get along with each other and compared to utopia that will make life a little more difficult. But then, life isn't supposed to be easy.

Maybe. But not necessarily the right ones, or to the right degree.
Then people either get unhappy and leave or overthrow you, or your society collapses due to economic constraints.

This was one of Marx's crucial errors: he assumed a natural tendency toward the ideal. But nothing of the sort need be.
The only reason why it wouldn't is a lack of competition. And even then the process of "natural selection", as it were, is just slowed down, not stopped.

That's why I like minarchism and anarchism. The best idea must necessarily win because there would finally be proper competition. And I don't mind left-libertarians because I know their society can't keep what it promises and rather than using force or even arguments, reality will do the convincing for me.

We develop rational, critical minds most effectively in response to others. An exceptional few of us may have such innate skill that it comes to us without such exposure. But there's no reason to believe that most people are like that.
So if we put a kid into the wild, that kid wouldn't develop a sharp, analytical and critical mind? How would it survive? Reality doesn't do unsubstantiated opinions, it doesn't do feelings, hope or faith. That kid's only chance of survival would be its ability to understand complex and causal relationships and begin modifying its environment in a way that suits it.

It's social relations that allows people to give their brains a rest from time to time, and it's redistribution that can lead to people never bothering to switch them on in the first place. So I think you got something the wrong way around.

Soheran: But in no way is a person's freedom of conscience abridged by stopping him or her from publishing a book.
And freedom of conscience [...] is my only personal freedom?


Publish book.
People buy book.
...
Profit!


Yep, I thought you'd pick that up.

And freedom of conscience (which I think you need to explain to me because it could mean so many things as to be meaningless) is my only personal freedom?

Of course it isn't. But it's one of them.

But surely there is some right to free speech beyond talking into my pillow.

Indeed there is. But it doesn't stem from any concern for personal freedom. It stems, as I've emphasized, from protecting the capacity of the public forum to reach truth and right.

Holocaust denial interferes with rather than enhancing this end.

And the legitimacy of law is a whole different animal. You still haven't been able to convince me that democracy represents anything more than majority rule or that it can actually create a legitimacy for its decisions.

Democracy is the only mode of government possible where the people who rule and the people who obey are the same. That's why it's legitimate.

Insofar as the arguments brought against make sense, they are really arguments against government as such, and miss the fact that within what political philosophy foolishly calls "the state of nature" the freedom they prize so highly is necessarily impossible. Disputes cannot be resolved with respect to freedom, but only with respect to power. Democracy is the institutionalization of joint freedom, public freedom--freedom together. Freedom is not possible any other way--not unless you want to live as a hermit, in which case no one will stop you, or be a dictator, in which case you get your freedom at the expense of everyone else's.

All of these are supported because they make the supporter happy

You can't possibly know that. Some of us support those things because we've been rationally convinced of their worth as such, whatever makes us happy. That's what it means to be under moral obligation.

In any case, the question is not so much whether we vote for selfish reasons in the sense of voting in a way that makes us happy. The question is whether we vote with respect to the public good (even if we like voting for the public good) or whether we vote our own interest.

Anything we can figure out with regards to legitimacy we have to draw from the content itself. And in that case it doesn't matter whether it was unanimously decided or imposed by a lunatic dictator.

This is the logic of the tyrant. Freedom is necessarily procedural. What matters is not the particular choice, but how it was made--that it was made freely.

So whether or not something ends up being hate speech worthy of banning ends up being a question of how the victim perceives it, not content - and you've just established a right not to be offended.

That's a massive leap.

When rappers say the n-word, it isn't hate speech regardless of whether or not anyone is offended. It's not meant in a racist way; it's not a racial attack. It's just a word.

When Fred Phelps rants about gay people, that's hate speech regardless of whether or not anyone is offended. It's intended quite deliberately to drum up hatred against gays; it is a homophobic attack.

That's a distinction based on content, not on anyone's response.

And everyone in Burma is free to express non-government critical opinions.

And their political rights are neglected as a result, because there might be policies it would be right to adopt that their inability to speak prevents them from bringing about.

But no right policy can result from hate speech, because hate speech denies the first principle of political right: to put it simply, "everyone matters."

Now with hate speech laws X just goes straight to jail, not collecting $200 and you've ended public deliberation before it ever started.

Yes, I have. The result of "public deliberation" on the inferiority of some people can never be productive, because it denies the basic context in which political debate should take place and because it has the effect of marginalizing people who should be involved in political debate.

But note that insofar as there is as yet no conclusive scholarly consensus on IQ, I'd be against restricting that debate. It doesn't directly assert the moral inferiority of Blacks, and that can't be assumed to be its subtext until the truth is clear on this subject.

There is only one form of power, and that's violence. Any other form relies on the voluntary participation of the other person and therefore isn't power any more than being a masochist is being a victim.

A person's starving in front of me. I have the power to give that person food. "I'll only give you food if you deny global warming." Q.E.D. ;)

Intolerance can't be universally against you. There will always be someone somewhere who will take you for what you are, especially since "intolerant society" just means "society with a high number of intolerant individuals in it". There's an endless list of exceptions and those will be the people to talk to.

I'm not saying it's impossible to have a social life in such a society. I'm saying that it's a lot more difficult to have political speech in such a society.

Intolerance is not destiny, it can be resisted and overcome, but so what?

Yes, that's harder than if everyone loved you. But no one is ever universally loved, and no one can seriously advocate a society that could make this the case. Regardless of how social relations are organised some people just don't get along with each other and compared to utopia that will make life a little more difficult.

Slippery slope. I'm not aiming for the ideal. Just for something better.

Then people either get unhappy and leave or overthrow you,

Why are you so sure? The people might win. Or the powerful might. You don't know. It's not a dispute satisfied by who is right, but by who has more power--which is precisely the point.

The only reason why it wouldn't is a lack of competition. And even then the process of "natural selection", as it were, is just slowed down, not stopped.

But "natural selection" doesn't work once we bring different levels of power into it.

In a murderous dictatorship, protesting the government is "bad" in natural selection terms... but it's perfectly justified in terms of "right."

European imperialism destroyed the indigenous cultures of the Americas, but it didn't do it because its political or social form was better--it did it through brute force.

The people who win a war, whether between nations or within nations, aren't the people who are more justified but just the people with more power. It's power, not right, that dictates "natural selection."

So if we put a kid into the wild, that kid wouldn't develop a sharp, analytical and critical mind?

Regarding society? Of course not.

Regarding his direct environment? Maybe. Actually, though, I doubt it. Not if he's alone.

How would it survive?

The child probably wouldn't. Not alone.

Reality doesn't do unsubstantiated opinions, it doesn't do feelings, hope or faith.

It doesn't do right either--just might. Not inherently, anyway.

It's social relations that allows people to give their brains a rest from time to time,

Indeed, but without social relations we wouldn't have much of "minds" in the first place.

and it's redistribution that can lead to people never bothering to switch them on in the first place.

As if stupidity were an invention of the welfare state.

While personally I wouldn't mind if it was, I would never support anybody who attempted to outlaw it because my belief in a right to free speech outweighs my distaste for what I consider to be undesirable speech or opinions.

I think you think as I do.
Unfortunately, it is not too dissimilar to making god denial illegal and we have (fortunately) long since passed through that phase in most non-islamic countries.
:fluffle:

As if stupidity were an invention of the welfare state.

It's not. It's my invention. Mine mine mine. And no one EVER gives me credit for it!!!!! :mad:

*sulks*

It's not. It's my invention. Mine mine mine. And no one EVER gives me credit for it!!!!! :mad:

*sulks*

I'll give you credit for it.

But you really should have taken out a patent.

*banks the stupidity*

You're equivocating.

In mathematics, equality is symmetric: if a = b, then b = a. But in casual usage in a context like this one--"Holocaust denial equals anti-Semitism"--what is meant is that Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic, not that every case of anti-Semitism is also Holocaust denial, or every anti-Semite denies the Holocaust.

Pointing out an anti-Semite who doesn't deny the Holocaust proves nothing of relevance.

I answered the implication in the post I was responding to.

You know, when I got the option to stop a nazi rally in my nationstate I did. But I don't think denying it should be illegal. Don't you think there's a difference between huge rallies in the middle of public places, and expressing one's personal view?

You know, when I got the option to stop a nazi rally in my nationstate I did. But I don't think denying it should be illegal. Don't you think there's a difference between huge rallies in the middle of public places, and expressing one's personal view?if it both happens in public: no.

I answered the implication in the post I was responding to.

What post? Where has anyone said anything that would be refuted by noting an anti-Semite who wasn't a Holocaust denier?

Who knows the culture best? Jews themselves. So shut it bigot.

BTW: I have done research on Jewis Culture myself.So you know that Judaism is ideological dirt. And I doubt that a Jew would ever be able to admit that.

So you know that Judaism is ideological dirt. And I doubt that a Jew would ever be able to admit that.

Why to be perceptive! Also...way to prove that you are an anti-semite. BTW: I do not take kindly to insults of my fiance's heritage.

Why to be perceptive! Also...way to prove that you are an anti-semite. BTW: I do not take kindly to insults of my fiance's heritage.I do not care about your fiance's alleged heritage. And everyone who has read the Tanakh and understood it will eventually become antisemitic. Because he will necessarily realize that Judaism is simply the biggest pile of horseshit in the history of humankind.

No. Holocaust denial should not be illegal, and nor should any other so-called "hate crimes". Free speech is a crucial right in any society, and as soon as you take it away you're starting down a path threatens to take away every other civil liberty as well. Am I anti-Semetic? No, of course not. I think that the freedom to believe what you want is just as essential as, oh, I don't know... the freedom to say what you want. The holocaust did occur - There's no serious doubt about that even, I suspect, in the minds of its most fervent and outspoken deniers. But no aspect of language, thought, or expression can be made illegal, even if it directly correlates to physical actions, because there is no way to prove. Also, if they are hate crimes associated with violence, you only propegate the ideals behind the assault if you prosecute them (with them being the ideals, as opposed to the people and their actions).
Example:
Two skinheads are walking down the street and come across a black man. They gang up, and beat him. They scream derogatory insults, and when they are brought in admit that it was a racially motivated crime. When they are taken before the court, they shouldn't be charged based on anything to do with the colour of the victim. That only legitimizes the racism and furthers it within the judicial system. You should never try someone for assaulting a black man. You should try them for assaulting a man, and leave the racial details out of it entirely. If you don't, then you're exhibiting racist tendencies yourself, and your ideals are scarcely better than their own.

So, in a nutshell -
Hate crimes should be abolished. Period.

I do not care about your fiance's alleged heritage. And everyone who has read the Tanakh and understood it will eventually become antisemitic.

having fun projecting? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

You're so transparent. You're anti-Semitic, so you assume EVERYONE is too. Sorry chum; not everyone is as bigoted and hateful as you are.

Because he will necessarily realize that Judaism is simply the biggest pile of horseshit in the history of humankind.

More projection. You came to a conclusion, now you expect everyone else to come to the same conclusion. How arrogant, vile, and amusingly ignorant.

Free speech is free speech. If you let the government crack down on people for expressing one opinion, who's to say they won't be banning your opinions next week?

I do not care about your fiance's alleged heritage. And everyone who has read the Tanakh and understood it will eventually become antisemitic.

No.

1. Judaism is based on a lot more than the Tanakh (the Talmud for example)

2. Hatred of Judaism wouldn't necessarily translate into hatred of Jews anyway...

1. Judaism is based on a lot more than the Tanakh (the Talmud for example)The Talmud is based on the Tanakh.

2. Hatred of Judaism wouldn't necessarily translate into hatred of Jews anyway...Well, if I find an ideology to be rubbish, I'll extend that to its followers.

Well, if I find an ideology to be rubbish, I'll extend that to its followers.


*sigh* Which is why you are a bigot.

It should not be illegal, freedom if speech is critical. Besides, if they're in prison, how can everybody laugh at them.

the Deniers.

Capital D for deniers? Are you trying to implicate that they are another race? If so I applaud you.

I do not care about your fiance's alleged heritage.

Alleged? Its a cold hard fact.

And everyone who has read the Tanakh and understood it will eventually become antisemitic. Because he will necessarily realize that Judaism is simply the biggest pile of horseshit in the history of humankind.

:headbang:

Capital D for deniers? Are you trying to implicate that they are another race? If so I applaud you.

I wasn't implying that, but them being competely different from regular human beings would explain the lack of empathy Deniers feel towards the Holocaust.;)

Indeed there is. But it doesn't stem from any concern for personal freedom. It stems, as I've emphasized, from protecting the capacity of the public forum to reach truth and right.
So as soon as we enter the public arena, a person's rights only derive from the value the person adds to the workings of this arena?

Disputes cannot be resolved with respect to freedom, but only with respect to power.
That's not true. Disputes can be resolved even better by reality itself. If you think planting a tree will eventually give us fruit and I don't, we can either bash each other over the head or we can just plant the thing and look.

The former is power, the latter the freedom to do what we think is right and see whether we actually are, in the process developing an example for others infintely more correct than anything public deliberation by itself is likely to deliver.

Democracy is the institutionalization of joint freedom, public freedom--freedom together. Freedom is not possible any other way--not unless you want to live as a hermit, in which case no one will stop you, or be a dictator, in which case you get your freedom at the expense of everyone else's.
It's the freedom to be in chains. The only way to be free together is to be free seperately and respect each other's freedom. In your democracy you and I cease to be seperate and our individual freedom becomes meaningless as long as this "joint freedom" is there, which it seems to be simply by virtue that someone somewhere held a poll.

You can't possibly know that. Some of us support those things because we've been rationally convinced of their worth as such, whatever makes us happy. That's what it means to be under moral obligation.
And moral obligation is simply something we have in our heads. If we don't follow it, we think of ourselves as bad people and therefore we will try and follow what we consider our obligations.

There is no such thing as a voluntary and non-selfish action.

Ayn Rand (*leaves time for groans*) wrote that the natural conclusion of the "selfishness is bad" creed is that nothing that is done voluntarily can be considered good and only things you do when forced against your will can be considered worthy. I wasn't sure I quite understood the reasoning to get from A to B before, but I think I do now.

In any case, the question is not so much whether we vote for selfish reasons in the sense of voting in a way that makes us happy. The question is whether we vote with respect to the public good (even if we like voting for the public good) or whether we vote our own interest.
No one knows what the public good is, no one can actually vote for it. People vote for their own idea of the public good, and whether for me that's the establishment of a police department or my installation as bloodthirsty tyrant doesn't make much of a difference.

Everyone always at least pretends to do what they're doing for others. A lot of the time they genuinely believe that they're doing it. That's the product of a long tradition in moral philosophy but I fail to see the inherent superiority of helping another over helping myself or considering myself and the public seperate.

This is the logic of the tyrant. Freedom is necessarily procedural. What matters is not the particular choice, but how it was made--that it was made freely.
Sounds okay for some matters, but at some point you end up having to ask questions. Democracy may, in your opinion, equate to having made a choice freely, but that doesn't mean that a decision to throw all black people in jail equates to freedom. At some point the content of the policy or choice does matter and it can't derive its legitimacy simply from the fact that a majority voted for it. Yes, collective decisionmaking is weird, but that weirdness must have implications worth considering.

That's a distinction based on content, not on anyone's response.
It's a distinction based on intent, not content. And that's a lot harder to judge - and indeed the right things can be said and done with the wrong intention. And that has implications for whether banning hate speech actually improves public deliberation.

Yes, I have. The result of "public deliberation" on the inferiority of some people can never be productive, because it denies the basic context in which political debate should take place and because it has the effect of marginalizing people who should be involved in political debate.
To take things to an extreme: maybe X was right and it turns out that blacks were worse at the things IQ tests measure. Maybe that knowledge would enable schools, workplaces and so on to accomodate black people more effectively.

The debate was only launched because of what could be classified hate speech, especially if that classification is based on intention.

But note that insofar as there is as yet no conclusive scholarly consensus on IQ, I'd be against restricting that debate. It doesn't directly assert the moral inferiority of Blacks, and that can't be assumed to be its subtext until the truth is clear on this subject.
X may well have been asserting it. Chances are that even his reasons for doing the research in the first place was based on his conviction of their moral inferiority.

I can't say that I'm particularly satisfied with your definition of hate speech.

A person's starving in front of me. I have the power to give that person food. "I'll only give you food if you deny global warming." Q.E.D. ;)
I'd call that a non sequitur. If I'm the starving person, I could look for food somewhere else. If that's not possible, the question is still why I'm starving in the first place. If you caused me to, it's through some application of violence and restriction of my ability to do commerce. If you didn't, my gripe isn't with you but with reality, ie some irrational or wrong behaviour on my part previously.

Intolerance is not destiny, it can be resisted and overcome, but so what?
So that rather matters, because a law restricting things is a different animal.

Slippery slope. I'm not aiming for the ideal. Just for something better.

So you really think racism goes away if you ban hate speech? Taking part in public deliberation involves two sides: not just someone who is confident enough to speak, but also someone who is open enough to listen. Just because you pass a law that makes a person fail to realise just how hated he is doesn't make others listen to him and public deliberation hasn't been improved at all.

Why are you so sure? The people might win. Or the powerful might. You don't know. It's not a dispute satisfied by who is right, but by who has more power--which is precisely the point.
The only way the people could not win is if the state uses violence, which it of course does. That already makes it illegitimate, as it aims to impose its own irrationality on the real world.

So the connection between true and right is still there. Just because the state can use violence to delay the realisation of what is true (which curiously implies doing something that is clearly not right) doesn't mean that a state or society that wants to continue its existence beyond the immediate future can ignore the link between what is and what must be for the is to continue.

Regarding society? Of course not.
Reason doesn't help you maneuvre society, I think we both know that. Emotional intelligence, lying and playing people's irrationalities does. Reason is a tool to understand reality, but inside most people's brains causality is the exception rather than the norm.

Of course the kid would have problems with that. Any honest person would - it's just that the honesty is bred out of us from an early age.

Regarding his direct environment? Maybe. Actually, though, I doubt it. Not if he's alone.
So you're saying learning alone is impossible?

So as soon as we enter the public arena, a person's rights only derive from the value the person adds to the workings of this arena?

A person's right to free expression? Yes. But the "value" being sought includes that person's own capacity to make an appeal to public right.

That's not true. Disputes can be resolved even better by reality itself. If you think planting a tree will eventually give us fruit and I don't, we can either bash each other over the head or we can just plant the thing and look.

Maybe you insist that you don't want to do the work in planting a useless tree. Is that unreasonable? Hardly.

So we have a conflict of will. Either we find a way to be free jointly, or one of us imposes on the other.

The only way to be free together is to be free seperately

What, in a dream-world where we all live and are happy alone on isolated islands? It's not that being free separately is "bad" so much as that it's impossible.

Capitalist libertarianism is attached ideologically to "individualism", but the practical result of such a doctrine in the social world is always masters and slaves, rulers and ruled, not free individuals. We are never free as individuals. By making the attempt, we leave disputes among individuals to be solved through power, and ultimately that means that none of us are free.

In your democracy you and I cease to be seperate

No. In society as such, you and I cease to be separate. We are interdependent. We coexist in a world of scarcity. We necessarily compete.

and our individual freedom becomes meaningless as long as this "joint freedom" is there,

No. Our individual freedom is not there in the first place. To the extent we can get it at all, we can only get it in a society that permits us the public freedom to secure it against the power of other individuals.

Traditional liberalism assumed that we could gain this protection through the social enforcement of private property rights. But socialists have long noted that traditional liberalism failed to foresee or effectively deal with the nature of industrial capitalism... and was bound up from the start with a class bias that undermined its own fundamental objectives.

Much the same could be said of its attitude towards speech. Its bias obscured the existence of private power in the public forum, just as it obscured the existence of private power in the factory and the household.

And moral obligation is simply something we have in our heads. If we don't follow it, we think of ourselves as bad people and therefore we will try and follow what we consider our obligations.

No. You have it backwards. We don't follow moral obligation because if we don't, we feel like bad people. We follow moral obligation because it is right to do so. We feel like bad people when we fail to do so because we realize we have done wrong. It is the consequence, not the incentive.

There is no such thing as a voluntary and non-selfish action.

This is deterministic nonsense. We have free will, or at least we necessarily act upon this assumption. We have the free will to choose right over want. We have the free will to help others not because we want to, but because we think it is right.

"Is this action right?" "Is this action what I want to do?" Different questions. Different answers.

Ayn Rand (*leaves time for groans*) wrote that the natural conclusion of the "selfishness is bad" creed is that nothing that is done voluntarily can be considered good and only things you do when forced against your will can be considered worthy.

That's because Ayn Rand had no understanding whatsoever of the philosophical arguments of her opponents. What she did understand, consciously or not, was human psychology--how to convince people, how to appeal to them, especially to the intelligent. Her writing, ironically enough, thus devolves into exactly what she says is her worst enemy: the elevation of sentiment over reason.

No surprise, because she apparently thought she could just do away with is/ought.

No one knows what the public good is, no one can actually vote for it.

What on Earth are you talking about? People can make judgments about the public good just as they can make judgments about their own private good.

People vote for their own idea of the public good,

Sure, and they also vote, in your model, for their own idea of what is good for them... so what?

and whether for me that's the establishment of a police department or my installation as bloodthirsty tyrant doesn't make much of a difference.

Sure it does. You can will the first publicly--you can say that whether it's you who needs it or someone else who does, establishing a police department is justified. But you can't will the same for your installation as a tyrant. The harm to everyone else would far exceed the benefit to you. As soon as you consider the matter publicly, it's clear that you cannot (ethically) support such a thing.

That's the product of a long tradition in moral philosophy but I fail to see the inherent superiority of helping another over helping myself

Who said there's any such "inherent superiority"? You are not required to be a slave. But you are required to consider political questions of right independently of your own status and interest. To do otherwise is to subordinate "ought" to "is."

Democracy may, in your opinion, equate to having made a choice freely, but that doesn't mean that a decision to throw all black people in jail equates to freedom.

Of course not. Such a decision debases the notion of "public."

At some point the content of the policy or choice does matter and it can't derive its legitimacy simply from the fact that a majority voted for it.

There are other procedural considerations than majority vote. Formal universal suffrage is meaningless if there are constant majority-minority relations. That is one of the reasons we have clauses about equality under law in constitutions.

It's a distinction based on intent, not content. And that's a lot harder to judge - and indeed the right things can be said and done with the wrong intention.

No, it isn't. It's a distinction based on content. It's just a distinction that takes into account context, both within the work and within society.

If I argue that welfare policies haven't worked, and compile real evidence to prove it, it doesn't matter if I do so because I hate Black people--it's still not hate speech.

If I write a book that's virulently homophobic, it doesn't matter if I do it to make money, or even if I do it out of a warped concern for the public good (or even for gays themselves)--it's still hate speech.

X may well have been asserting it.

That does make a difference. But if that's the case, then why the concern about restricting it? It no longer helps us reach truth; it's just an attack on the "public" element whose political importance I keep emphasizing.

Chances are that even his reasons for doing the research in the first place was based on his conviction of their moral inferiority.

His reasons are irrelevant if he advances an argument that can stand on its own without racism.

I'd call that a non sequitur. If I'm the starving person, I could look for food somewhere else.

"If I'm being threatened with a gun, I can always avoid the person who's threatening me."

If you didn't, my gripe isn't with you but with reality, ie some irrational or wrong behaviour on my part previously.

"My real problem isn't that the person's threatening me with a gun, it's that I don't have enough means of defense to protect myself from his bullets. Hmm, maybe this is my fault somehow."

You can always provide an explanation for how power ends up according with a kind of freedom; if you're clever enough, you can provide an explanation for anything. But it requires serious dogmatism to assume that that's how it works in the real world.

Furthermore, in a sense your own arguments prove my point. The victim is always supposed to respond--he must cope with a social system where he can be starved to death. But if he were truly free, he would be able to engage that social system, to have a say in how it works.

Democracy.

So that rather matters, because a law restricting things is a different animal.

Maybe. But why are you so concerned with the capacity of the purveyors of hate speech to overcome the law?

So you really think racism goes away if you ban hate speech?

Didn't I just say I aimed for something better, not for perfection?

Just because you pass a law that makes a person fail to realise just how hated he is

I'm sure he realizes that just fine. But he is capable of participating in a discourse that isn't bound by that.

doesn't make others listen to him and public deliberation hasn't been improved at all.

You're assuming that everyone but the minority group shares the nature and degree of bigotry expressed by those who engage in hate speech. But that need not be the case at all. In fact, usually hate speech comes from the extremes. Its influence stems from the fact that it is just an extreme expression of a prejudice that has real social power... but nothing about that says that there is no one amenable to hearing the message of the marginalized, once they have the social space to say it.

The only way the people could not win is if the state uses violence, which it of course does. That already makes it illegitimate, as it aims to impose its own irrationality on the real world.

Why is the state not part of the real world? Its violence seems perfectly real to me.

So the connection between true and right is still there.

No, it isn't. This isn't that difficult a concept.

It is not right that I get shot for protesting the government. But it might still be true.

Reason doesn't help you maneuvre society, I think we both know that.

Who said anything about "maneuver"? I'm talking about judgments about society, the stuff of public deliberation: what policies society should adopt, and so forth.

Of course the kid would have problems with that. Any honest person would - it's just that the honesty is bred out of us from an early age.

"Bred out of us" is an interesting phrase. It suggests a critique of the existing social system that you might be wise to consider further. ;)

So you're saying learning alone is impossible?

No, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more difficult.

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

No, but it should be classed as Idiot Speech.

Idiot Speech is my alternative to hate speech laws (which currently, in Canada, prevent a group from lobbying for the extermination or harming of a protected group). Basically, engaging in Idiot Speech (extreme homophobia, racism, etc.) won't bring the law down on you, but you will forgo any right to protection from weaponless assault.

So you can deny the holocaust, support the Klan and parrot the Westboro church all you want.. but people are then legally allowed to beat the shit out of you. Keep in mind that hitting them back *is* classed as assault, however, and will get you arrested.

Why Holocaust denial should be illegal, is because millions of innocent people died in it.

There are people to prove it, people who have lost their parents,siblings,uncles,aunts,friends, etc.:
If that's a 'lie', then where did all this family dissapear to? :confused:

Free Speech is important, but something which has evidence against it, can't pursaude people.

Thank You,
Ruler of
Middle Brittania
Israeli England

No, but it should be classed as Idiot Speech.

Idiot Speech is my alternative to hate speech laws (which currently, in Canada, prevent a group from lobbying for the extermination or harming of a protected group). Basically, engaging in Idiot Speech (extreme homophobia, racism, etc.) won't bring the law down on you, but you will forgo any right to protection from weaponless assault.

So you can deny the holocaust, support the Klan and parrot the Westboro church all you want.. but people are then legally allowed to beat the shit out of you. Keep in mind that hitting them back *is* classed as assault, however, and will get you arrested.Worshiping Yhvh is Idiot Speech just as well.

Worshiping Yhvh is Idiot Speech just as well.

You would say that, wouldn't you?

I can understand how some people may be swayed b the thought of making such a thing illegal. BUT.. If you maintain this position after reading most of these posts, I hope that you understand that I'll think your a little dim.

There are several reasons to say that it's silly to think that anything like this should be made illegal.

(1) Denying the holocaust DOES NOT incite violence.

Don't be confused by the fact that holocaust deniers can have a habit of saying things that DO incite violence.
I don't have any problem with someone denying the holocaust (they're idiots, duh) but a line might be crossed if they tell a bunch of impressionable kids to go kill jews for "spreading a lie like this."
People who say such things SHOULD be held accountable if violence results from saying this specific kind of thing.
If a nut job takes it on himself to hurt anyone based solely on people telling him that the holocaust was a lie then this nut job should be solely responsible.
The legality of kinds of hate speech that directly incite violence could be open to discussion, but this discussion is about Holocaust denial.

(2) I Like satire. If a satirist ironically denies the holocaust (perhaps by using the guise of an invented bigot character), I don't see a problem. People do this all the time. I love Southpark, and they say stuff that offends so many people, but is so hilarious. You say that that can't say one thing and it can only hurt the comic capabilities. This kind of satire also makes fun of and delegitimizes the assumed standpoint.
If there were a clause to protect any kind of hate speech if it is used for comical (or artistic) purposes, it could be easily used by some idiot who said stuff because he meant it. Why bother with the law. It's insane.

(3) If someone is stupid enough to believe that something like the holocaust didn't happen, this kind of law wouldn't help. People who want to spread this kind of filth will use the fact that the government has made such a law to legitimize their standpoint. Can't you just hear the arguments, "Don't you see? their forcing you to think a certain way. They don't WANT people to question it because they'll see that it was all fabricated..."?
The kind of nuts who believe the holocaust never happened are often guilty of believing that the jewish people have some power over the world. Your insane law would legitimize this claim in their eyes.
How dare you give ammunition to these nut jobs!

(4) Freedom of speech allows one guy to say something stupid and another to say, "that's stupid" and why. this point has been covered so much that I won't bore you with more.

(5) it's not Germany in the 50's.
Directly after the War it would've been quite easy for a german to deny that such a thing had occurred. Firstly, the nazis covered a lot of stuff up. D'you think they would've gotten away with so much if it was all in the open. Also, the evidence of all that happened was no where near what it is today. And lastly, d'you think the Germans at the time would've found it easy to believe that THEIR people committed such an act (arguments like "My brother was in the army. He would have had no part in that kind of atrocity" spring to mind). Pair that with the large amount of residing racists in the country who spawn from hitlers indoctrinations, and it becomes pretty easy to deny that it happened. Hence, the law made sense.. THEN.
The fact that any other country would adopt the law is beyond me. The only reason that I can see Germany keeping it is that it would be political suicide to attack such a law, as unjust as it may be. But I'm sure it's doable if it's presented as purely a revision on laws of free speech and not as a direct relation to the "denial" law.

So if anyone still want to keep this law... you know what... whatever.. your an idiot, and we live in a democracy. There's no way you could possibly convince enough people to be as fascist (yes) as you are, to make the law a reality. So believe what you want to believe. Thats my position. But if you try to defend your believes, know that someone will shoot it down in no time at all

Well, I think any sort of racism or hate speech should be illegal, but I don't think free speech should be illegal. If someone thinks the Holocaust didn't happen, I guess they should be allowed to exercise free speech, but if they extend it to hate speech, it's a little bit different.

I would say barely kept legal under the current system of exceptions to free speech (being employed in a position of power, slander, obscenity, perjury, copyright violations, etc.).

"Hate speech" as a restriction is arbitrary. In slander at least, they have to prove your accusations are groundless. Take "GOD HATES FAGS". Is it hate speech because they are identified solely on sexual orientation, or is it merely religious doctrine since there ARE passages that say kill homosexuals, or does that mean the Bible is a hate book? Seeing as most governments choose to outlaw the speech and allow the Bible (which all but shouts same)... the standard is inconsistent.

What I would propose is simply free speech if and only if you have sources for your statements. Crap sources allowed. Sounds utterly wikipedia-like, but if the denial people start needing sources, that exposes them to getting piledriven with "your evidence is pure BS". Then they get their ridicule, and nobody listens to them. The Jews can have justice in showing their idiocy, and the denialists get to spout (and roundhouse kicked).

P.S. it's a moral because you think it's right, not the other other way round. Morality is "a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong". You think you've done wrong when in contrary to the moral BECAUSE you accept the moral. If you didn't accept the moral, you wouldn't care about that action (at least care that way).

Well, I think any sort of racism or hate speech should be illegal, but I don't think free speech should be illegal.

...

...

what

I voted NO, not illegal, because I am for free speech. I am from Austria, where the denial is illegal, due to historic reasons of course which I understand.
Still, when you outlaw the denial of facts, what do you do for example with millions that believe the earth is 6000 years old and we are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve?

]Thank You,
Ruler of
Middle Brittania
Israeli England

I pick this off the end of your post to tell you more politely than others will: don't role-play in General.

You are welcome, but ... only as a poster. Leave your crown at the door.

===========

So you know that Judaism is ideological dirt. And I doubt that a Jew would ever be able to admit that.

Please answer this with "yes" or "no." Did Hitler and his government persecute Jews for their religion?

Hell, while we're on the subject, did Hitler and his government persecute Jews, killing millions of them?

===========

Capital D for deniers? Are you trying to implicate that they are another race? If so I applaud you.

I think I might have started that. I was just looking to be able to shorten "holocaust denial" to "HD."

In fact, there is no reason to capitalize "Holocaust."

==========

Why Holocaust denial should be illegal, is because millions of innocent people died in it.

I've hung in on this thread for a long time waiting to hear that.

I believe that IS what bans on Holocaust denial are really about. Respecting the dead, not forgetting the mistakes of history.

I also think that Western nations still have a lot of emotional investment in WW2. As these nations draw closer together in a shrinking world, they need some explanation for why, at the peak of European power, they had a pointless and self-destructive war. They need to hang onto a "cause," some high ideal, to explain the stupid thing they did.

And that is the Holocaust. Never mind that at the time, the Nazis said they hated Jews, said they would kill Jews, then went about slaughtering Jews. No nation went to war for that ... they went to war to protect their own power, to stop Germany taking all of Europe and becoming more powerful than them. Now, with a united Europe, spreading peacefully eastward, we are all left with the question: "well, why did we, we Europeans, do this stupid thing?"

And our answer is the Holocaust. To deny the Holocaust takes away an important reason for the second world war, in which we (western nations at least, some former colonies might see WW2 as a boon, the only chance they were ever going to get to break out of the British or French empires) squandered so much wealth and life. We stopped Nazism taking over the world.

Deny the Holocaust, and you deny the most abhorrent thing in Nazism. We beat Nazism, but at great cost. To deny the holocaust is to disrespect not just the dead Jews, but every life lost in that dreadful war.

It shouldn't be illegal. Any more than the Phelps nuts. But we might think of getting them to wear a sign that says "I am a fucking moron."

Well, I think any sort of racism or hate speech should be illegal, but I don't think free speech should be illegal. If someone thinks the Holocaust didn't happen, I guess they should be allowed to exercise free speech, but if they extend it to hate speech, it's a little bit different.

Contradiction.


Free speech, unless that speech offends me.

Free speech, unless that speech offends me.

That's not the standard.

That's not the standard.

No, it basically is. Hate speech can be defined as anything hateful that offends a group of people. Hate speech itself does not do anything but offend. It can incite violence, but then persecute those committing the violence.


You cant start censoring whatever offends you. Amor said racism should be banned. Im saying its fucking absurd to say you support free speech but then want to ban racism. If you want to ban racism, fine say it, dont make yourself into a contradiction by saying you support free speech but want to ban some expression.

Many have said that denying holocaust should be illegal, because there is evidence of it happening. There is proof of the existence of, say, Jesus (note: not of the wonders he made nor God), too, but I still don't think we should put people saying he never existed into prison. Yeah, Jesus didn't kill 17 million people, but that's not really the point. Crusades and the Inquisition have, too, be proven to have happened...

Note: I take no opinion for or against christianity in this post. Just used it as an example.

I think I might have started that. I was just looking to be able to shorten "holocaust denial" to "HD."

In fact, there is no reason to capitalize "Holocaust."



I know, but people do it anyway, I don't get it. You're 100% right on calling them HDs, after all, we can have WWII veterans, why not HD supporters, that is, Holocaust Denial Supporters.

Jesus didn't kill 17 million people


You may be looking for the number 6 there...

I know, but people do it anyway, I don't get it. You're 100% right on calling them HDs, after all, we can have WWII veterans, why not HD supporters, that is, Holocaust Denial Supporters.


Because labelling people is retarded?

Worshiping Yhvh is Idiot Speech just as well.Yeah, but there is harmless idiocy, and not so harmless.

Though the idea of making all religious expressions something that must be done in private, like sex, really appeals to me.

Though the idea of making all religious expressions something that must be done in private, like sex, really appeals to me.


I dont think that worked out too well for the French.

It shouldn't be illegal. Any more than the Phelps nuts. But we might think of getting them to wear a sign that says "I am a fucking moron."

Yeah, but that would only be news to other fucking morons. Since they probably couldn't understand the long words, I don't see the point.

You may be looking for the number 6 there...

Certainly not. I'm not putting Jews ahead of anybody else who lost their lives thanks to some Austrian corporal's cranked visions.

OOC (the expressed beliefs herein are not necessarily the views and beliefs of The Veiled Widow--you probably would not want to know what The Veiled Widow would think about this, nor anything for that matter ;) ):

This question does not mention the enforcement of a belief upon others. The DENIAL of anything should not be illegal. One has the ability, and right, to THINK what they want. Otherwise, there would be some form of Thought-Crime and thusly Thought-Police with somehow-enforceable Thought-Control laws. Enforcement of such beliefs upon others is entirely different. At that point, facts/actual-history/history-from-the-victors/falsehoods/etc come in to play.

Note: What is stated is only out of respect to the "(explain)" clause of the question, not as a need to state what must have been stated in 11 pages of explaining.

No, it basically is. Hate speech can be defined as anything hateful that offends a group of people.

Yes, it can be defined that way. That does not mean it should be defined that way.

Hate speech itself does not do anything but offend.

No. Hate speech is an attack on the worth of a group of people who share some arbitrary trait--a virulent assertion of their inferiority. It is virtually always offensive, but that is incidental to the definition.

You cant start censoring whatever offends you.

I agree. So what?

Im saying its fucking absurd to say you support free speech but then want to ban racism.

It's only "absurd" if you think of "free speech" in purely abstract terms--if you don't ground it in some concept of how society should be.

But if you believe in free speech because you believe in a tolerant society, or because you want us as a public to be capable of seeking truth and right, then to support absolute free speech in the case of bigotry is to betray the ideals upon which free speech is founded. It is to accept intolerance, to accept the evils of the status quo instead of demanding the room for critical challenges to them.

Though the idea of making all religious expressions something that must be done in private, like sex, really appeals to me.

I, on the other hand, think that sex, like religion, shouldn't have to be done in private. ;)

It's only "absurd" if you think of "free speech" in purely abstract terms--if you don't ground it in some concept of how society should be.

But if you believe in free speech because you believe in a tolerant society, or because you want us as a public to be capable of seeking truth and right, then to support absolute free speech in the case of bigotry is to betray the ideals upon which free speech is founded. It is to accept intolerance, to accept the evils of the status quo instead of demanding the room for critical challenges to them.


Free speech was not founded on the principle of protecting people from ideas that might hurt their feelings. People should be able to say waht they want. If you believe that jews are out to get you, you should have a right to publically state it, as long as the public has the right to critisize you.

I maintain that if you support free speech but want to ban some types of speech, no matter how bigoted and offensive it is, you are a hypocrit.

There is a reason the klan and neo nazies are allowed to rally in America. Hate speech is still protected free speech.

Free speech was not founded on the principle of protecting people from ideas that might hurt their feelings.

No, it wasn't.

People should be able to say waht they want.

Why?

I maintain that if you support free speech but want to ban some types of speech, no matter how bigoted and offensive it is, you are a hypocrit.

I just gave a non-hypocritical justification for exactly that stance. You ignored it.

There is a reason the klan and neo nazies are allowed to rally in America.

Yes. A bad one.

Contradiction.


Free speech, unless that speech offends me.

Well no, it's not about it "offending" me, personally. I suppose you can't make racism or hate speech illegal, but I believe with rights come responsibilities, and I certainly think exercising free speech to instigate violence or hatred should be frowned upon.

No, it basically is. Hate speech can be defined as anything hateful that offends a group of people. Hate speech itself does not do anything but offend. It can incite violence, but then persecute those committing the violence.


You cant start censoring whatever offends you. Amor said racism should be banned. Im saying its fucking absurd to say you support free speech but then want to ban racism. If you want to ban racism, fine say it, dont make yourself into a contradiction by saying you support free speech but want to ban some expression.

Chill.

...

...

what

Yeh, I realise I kind of contradicted myself there, haha.

Free speech was not founded on the principle of protecting people from ideas that might hurt their feelings. People should be able to say waht they want. If you believe that jews are out to get you, you should have a right to publically state it, as long as the public has the right to critisize you.
I maintain that if you support free speech but want to ban some types of speech, no matter how bigoted and offensive it is, you are a hypocrit.

There is a reason the klan and neo nazies are allowed to rally in America. Hate speech is still protected free speech.

I think the important thing is the right of reply. If someone does say something offensive, people are allowed to reply.

It's not exactly hypocrisy. It's more of a contradiction than anything.

Worshiping Yhvh is Idiot Speech just as well.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Actually, only people in glass houses should throw stones, provided they are trapped in the house. With the stone. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rcwfdFT1ohE&feature=PlayList&p=97D1C1BF13E199F1&index=4)

Far be it from me, as an atheist, to complain about how upset adherents to Christianity or other religions get when I deny their god(s), and yet not allow someone their own point of view.

Holocaust deniers may be misinformed and generally stupid, but it'd be absurd to outlaw an opinion or the expression thereof. Not all slopes are slippery, but I see the Crisco glistening off this one.

I think it should be outlawed, but not that its a ticket or jail time. No no thats ridiculous right there, WE NEED PUBLIC EXECUTIONS!!! That will teach the public the truth not to deny the truth. Whenever a non believer of the holocaust speaks out, a firing squad shows up at their door step and "bang, bang, bang" no more problem. And if the non believe runs to another country then the CIA tracks them down and eliminate them. Either execute or teach the non-believer to believe in the holocaust.

I think it should be outlawed, but not that its a ticket or jail time. No no thats ridiculous right there, WE NEED PUBLIC EXECUTIONS!!! That will teach the public the truth not to deny the truth. Whenever a non believer of the holocaust speaks out, a firing squad shows up at their door step and "bang, bang, bang" no more problem. And if the non believe runs to another country then the CIA tracks them down and eliminate them. Either execute or teach the non-believer to believe in the holocaust.

No.

Hate speech itself does not do anything but offend. It can incite violence, but then persecute those committing the violence.

I don't quite get that. Sounds to me that you should only persecute, say, terrorists, after they commited a violent act? Or do you mean one should identify, in a group of hate speechers those who actually have the potential to turn to violence?

No... we cant just pick and choose what aspects of free speech we want to accept... that could lead to abuse of power by certain people.

No... we cant just pick and choose what aspects of free speech we want to accept... that could lead to abuse of power by certain people.Yes, those who abuse free speech to spread their misinformation.

Just looked at the photos I took at Auschwitz. It should be illegal.

Just looked at the photos I took at Auschwitz. It should be illegal.

Why?

Why?

Because deniers are certifiable.

No, I don't think it should be illegal. If it is made possible to make questioning one historical event (or any aspect of it) illegal, then what other things may follow? Once you place a restriction on doubt, whether you agree with it or not, then you've begun down a slippery slope.

It's like the French philosopher Voltaire states: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Also any "truth" that requires physical force, threats of imprisonment and even death (as stated by one above poster) is a very flimsy truth indeed, truth needs to be proved by facts, not by force; Arresting people for denial only increases skepticism.

Because deniers are certifiable.

Now there's a slippery slope argument. If Holocaust deniers of certifiable then I can claim that all who deny the existance of God are certifiable.

I don't quite get that. Sounds to me that you should only persecute, say, terrorists, after they committed a violent act? Or do you mean one should identify, in a group of hate speechers those who actually have the potential to turn to violence?

I think you mean prosecute. (And I agree with that old-fashioned idea: even if you can prove conspiracy (intention to commit a violent act, material steps towards it) ... that is always a less serious matter than actually committing the act. We can't know for sure that they wouldn't change their mind at the last minute.)

Now there's a slippery slope argument. If Holocaust deniers of certifiable then I can claim that all who deny the existence of God are certifiable.That claim is unsubstantiated. The holocaust is well documented and its occurrence undeniable, while the existence of god lacks all documentation, evidence, and verification.

That claim is unsubstantiated. The holocaust is well documented and its occurrence undeniable, while the existence of god lacks all documentation, evidence, and verification.

It is still a slippery slope! Anyone can claim something to be fact! Does not matter if the evidence is there or not for people to see. I can tell you that the evidence of God's existance is all around you but you will not believe it. As such, I can legally claim that you are certifiable for denying the existance of creation.

You see how this can get out of hand in a hurry?

I can tell you that the evidence of God's existance is all around you but you will not believe it.Nope. If it were real evidence, it would not require my belief to accept it.
So show me the evidence.

Here in the US, you can deny evolution, the Holocaust, etc...

You can get up on a street corner, and tell everyone that you believe in the Tooth Fairy...

It's all fair game, and it's also fair game for people here to call you an ass, and tell you you're an idiot.

Public ridicule of people with idiot ideas is legal here.

I think it works much better than counting on the state to police words.

Also any "truth" that requires physical force, threats of imprisonment and even death (as stated by one above poster) is a very flimsy truth indeed, truth needs to be proved by facts, not by force; Arresting people for denial only increases skepticism.

Yep. Precisely what I tell Christians who spit and shout at women at abortion clinics, or insert their beliefs into everyone else's lives via Congress - if you're not simply secure in your belief that you know the truth and instead have to force people to your way of looking at it, then you're far LESS likely to make people see any differently.

Besides, who SERIOUSLY takes HDers with anything but a grain of salt? With all the evidence to support the fact that the Holocaust took place?

There are standards of behaviour every person has to adhere to in society, and one doesn't have to resort to violence to step over them - stalking people, verbally berating them, any number of illegal acts that can get a person arrested. People daft enough to deny the Holocaust usually do things of that nature and get themselves silenced by their own stupidity. There are already limits on free speech - for instance, you can't stand on someone's private property and scream racial slurs at them. You can't log onto someone's message board and claim to hate Jews, then invoke "the right to free speech" as a reason not to be banned.

Essentially, everyone should have the right to think and believe, and say, what they want to. And we should also have the right not to listen, or to challenge. Making it illegal to even have or state a certain opinion IS dangerous, because one day, someone might take the reigns who holds a radically different set of views - and because of such awful precedent, they could arrest or punish anyone who denied a god. Just because a sane, rational person who accepts the Holocaust as fact writes or supports the law doesn't mean that they're ALWAYS going to be the ones enforcing and interpreting it. All it takes is one loose cannon around precedent like that.

Have the mettle to deal with the fact that there are stupid people in the world. Either argue them down, or ignore them. Having to throw them in prison is weak.

Yes, those who abuse free speech to spread their misinformation.

So, now you're god? Or at least, wise enough to be the censor (which is the same exact thing)?

Holocaust denial should not be illegal, but if you do partake in such lunacy, whether you be a random bum shouting on the street, a klukker at a rally or a head of state from one of several specific countries, you should be fully responsible for whatever results may derive from your dullheadedness.

Free speech doesn't mean I have to like what you say, nor does it mean that I have to treat you exactly the same as I'd treat someone whose views are a little bit more in line with reality.

In the end, people "deny" all sorts of awful crap. Many people are unwilling to admit to what the US government did to Native American populations, the Turkish government is unwilling to admit to what their predecessors did in Armenia, and Andaras is unwilling to admit that the Holodmor is nothing more than an aggressive genocidal campaign. If we were to ban all of these folks from expressing their viewpoints, the prison overflow from the war on drugs would seem nothing more than mere trickle.

So, now you're god? Or at least, wise enough to be the censor (which is the same exact thing)?It does not take a god to determine that something is not based on facts.

Nope. If it were real evidence, it would not require my belief to accept it.
So show me the evidence.

I point to nature outside as my evidence. See? You are in denial. You should be thrown in jail for denying the evidence.

You jsut proved my point.

Now there's a slippery slope argument. If Holocaust deniers of certifiable then I can claim that all who deny the existance of God are certifiable.

Slight difference there. The Jury on God will be out till Judgement day. The Holocaust definitely happened. There's no denying it unless you're certifiable. *looks at the President of Iran*

No, Holocaust denial should not in and of itself be illegal: Stupidity isn't a crime.

I would argue also that Holocaust denial does not automatically classify as hate speech (the justification often given as to why it should be illegal). However, many individual instances of Holocaust could be classified as hate speech (if, for instance, they cross the line from simply denying the Holocaust occurred to inciting violence or hatred against Jews because of it).

Yes. A bad one.

Freedom of speech and assembly are bad reasons?

It does not take a god to determine that something is not based on facts.

Given that human perception is imperfect, and our understanding of the world as we know it is, actually, quite malleable, I don't think it's quite so easily to come out and determine that "the facts" are quite as solid and invincible as we would like to think that they are.

Now there's a slippery slope argument. If Holocaust deniers of certifiable then I can claim that all who deny the existance of God are certifiable.

Nope: There's evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

Holocaust deniers are certifiable. Thanks for playing, and remember: The question mark is your friend!

Nope: There's evidence that the Holocaust occurred.

Holocaust deniers are certifiable. Thanks for playing, and remember: The question mark is your friend!

Um...Terra? Go back and re-read the conversation again. Thanks for playing.

Freedom of speech and assembly are bad reasons?

If you're not interested in an actual discussion, why do you bother?

If you're not interested in an actual discussion, why do you bother?

Because you said there were bad reasons why the klan and neo nazies were allowed to rally, and I said the reasons they were allowed to rally were the first fucking ammendment. Ergo, you are implying that is a bad reason.


If you want to ban thought you disagree with just admit it, dont pussyfoot around. You have yet to provide a reason for why the first ammendment does not apply to these forms of speech.

Because you said there were bad reasons why the klan and neo nazies were allowed to rally, and I said the reasons they were allowed to rally were the first fucking ammendment. Ergo, you are implying that is a bad reason.


If you want to ban thought you disagree with just admit it, dont pussyfoot around. You have yet to provide a reason for why the first ammendment does not apply to these forms of speech.

Well said.

And KoL? Its AMENDMENT! One m and not two :D

Because you said there were bad reasons why the klan and neo nazies were allowed to rally, and I said the reasons they were allowed to rally were the first fucking ammendment. Ergo, you are implying that is a bad reason.

As applied to Nazis? Yes.

Not as such.

If you want to ban thought you disagree with

I don't.

You have yet to provide a reason for why the first ammendment does not apply to these forms of speech.

I've spent this whole fucking thread giving reasons why the (very strong) reasons we have to protect freedom of speech and expression don't apply to hate speech. Hell, I even repeated them for you.

It's not my fault if you prefer ignoring what people say.

:rolleyes:

As applied to Nazis? Yes.

Not as such.



I don't.



I've spent this whole fucking thread giving reasons why the (very strong) reasons we have to protect freedom of speech and expression don't apply to hate speech. Hell, I even repeated them for you.

It's not my fault if you prefer ignoring what people say.

:rolleyes:



I prefer to ignore stupid ideas. No ideas you have said are very strong. They basically boil down to THEYRE OFFENSIVE!!!1111!!1!


I ask again, how does denying the holocaust not fall unde freedom of speech?

Making holocaust denial illegal would be forbidding free speech which is exactly what the fascists did during WWII.

Speech should be free not only for subjects you agree with but specially for subjects that you DON'T agree with.

If you don't like free speech you can raise your right hand, arm straight in front of you, and holler "Hail Hitler", you will then be right in character.

I prefer to ignore stupid ideas.

That's nice.

No ideas you have said are very strong.

Then the brilliant you should be able to rebut them easily, right?

Strange that you haven't made much of an attempt....

They basically boil down to THEYRE OFFENSIVE!!!1111!!1!

No, they don't. People find lots of things "offensive." Only a small subset of them fall within hate speech.

I ask again, how does denying the holocaust not fall unde freedom of speech?

You have eyes. Read the thread.

You have eyes. Read the thread.

I did, and you havent ever answered. You basically said that freedom of speech is meant to foster a tolerant society, to which I disagree that that is the intent of free speech.


We can argue the intent of free speech all we want, but in the plain words of the amendment, without trying to figure out what the founding fathers were intending (Mr Sculia...) please tell me how holocaust denial is not protected by freedom of speech.

You basically said that freedom of speech is meant to foster a tolerant society, to which I disagree that that is the intent of free speech.

Well, that's a start. Why, then, do you think free speech is so important? Why is it that I should be allowed to say what I want, even if it hurts someone else?

but in the plain words of the amendment

This implies a literalist fundamentalism I have no reason to accept and no one (except Llewdor) actually believes in.

The First Amendment protects "freedom of speech" the political concept, not "freedom of speech" the literal meaning.

The First Amendment protects "freedom of speech" the political concept, not "freedom of speech" the literal meaning.

Care to provide a reason for that?

or abridging the freedom of speech

I'm looking forward to reading it.

Well, that's a start. Why, then, do you think free speech is so important? Why is it that I should be allowed to say what I want, even if it hurts someone else?

As long as your words are not physically hurting someone else, you should be allows to say waht you want. Denying the holocaust is stupid and factually incorrect, but it causes no pain except hurt feelings.


Freedom of speech was created to allow people to express their ideas, regardless of those ideas, without fear of governmental retaliation.




The First Amendment protects "freedom of speech" the political concept, not "freedom of speech" the literal meaning.

Exactly, and freedom of speech, the political concept, allows people have, exactly that. Freedom of speech. You dont have to like it, but thats what it means. Holocaust denial is an opinion and an idea that is protected under freedom of speech. Klan rallies are peaceful rallies that are protected under freedom of assembly.

If it hurts someones feelings, frankly thats too bad. Theyre allowed to do it under our Consitution.

Again, your points are not strong. Again, they boil down to "It hurts peoples feelings and therefore should be banned".

Well, that's a start. Why, then, do you think free speech is so important? Why is it that I should be allowed to say what I want, even if it hurts someone else?

Because freedom of speech must be universal, else it is an oxymoron.

I point to nature outside as my evidence.That's no evidence. Evidence would be something that connected nature outside with your god.

Because freedom of speech must be universal, else it is an oxymoron.
In open societies all freedoms have limits. Otherwise society would collapse.

In open societies all freedoms have limits. Otherwise society would collapse.

Who says we need all these rights?

To allow people to express their ideas, regardless of those ideas, without fear of governmental retaliation.

That's the content, not the purpose. What end does that serve? Why is it so important? Why should we value it over so many other things?

Exactly, and freedom of speech, the political concept, allows people have, exactly that. Freedom of speech.

Well, that's nice and circular.

You dont have to like it, but thats what it means. Holocaust denial is an opinion and an idea that is protected under freedom of speech. Klan rallies are peaceful rallies that are protected under freedom of assembly.

You say this again and again, but only because you refuse to put the concept of free speech in any context.

What is free speech about?

If it hurts someones feelings, frankly thats too bad.

I agree. But I, unlike you, can justify why. And that's why I can see the limits of the justification.

Again, your points are not strong.

Then I'll have to assume that your utter failure to amount anything close to an effective response just proves your supreme incapacity to make a good argument. ;)

Again, they boil down to "It hurts peoples feelings and therefore should be banned".

Of course, that's not what I said. Repeating your own mischaracterizations generally isn't a very good argumentative technique.

That's the content, not the purpose. What end does that serve? Why is it so important? Why should we value it over so many other things?


Because silencing speech is silencing ideas. Do I really need to explain why its not a good idea to repress ideas?



Well, that's nice and circular.

Saying Freedom is Speech means freedom is speech is somehow refutable?


You say this again and again, but only because you refuse to put the concept of free speech in any context.

No, I put it in a context, you just dont like the context I put it in. I put it in the context where there is a society in whih there is an open exchange of ideas.

What is free speech about?

Open exchange of ideas.


I agree. But I, unlike you, can justify why. And that's why I can see the limits of the justification.

I can justify why. And I dont think we should limit freedom of speech.



Then I'll have to assume that your utter failure to amount anything close to an effective response just proves your supreme incapacity to make a good argument. ;)

Whos not making a good arguement?

Of course, that's not what I said. Repeating your own mischaracterizations generally isn't a very good argumentative technique.


Thats exactly what your bloody saying. Ok, fine, if its not, tell me. Why should the Klan not be allowed to rally if their rallies are peaceful? Why should neo nazies not be allowed to write factually inaccurate books about how the holocaust never happened?


Under your arguement, because some ideas can be used as justification for violence, we aught to ban religion. It slanders gays, and has been used as justification for violence.

And if thats not what your arguing, I suggest you learn a more effective way to articulate your point, because it seems like this line of thought is exactly what your arguing.

Do I really need to explain why its not a good idea to repress ideas?

Yes. Go ahead.

And don't think I didn't notice the change from "silence" to "repress."

Saying Freedom is Speech means freedom is speech is somehow refutable?

Do you know what "circular" means?

Open exchange of ideas.

That's not distinct enough from "free speech" itself to be meaningful.

I can justify why.

Then do it.

Why should the Klan not be allowed to rally if their rallies are peaceful? Why should neo nazies not be allowed to write factually inaccurate books about how the holocaust never happened?

The end of free speech is a tolerant society, a society that is capable of self-examination and self-criticism. That's fundamental to the idea of democratic freedom: if we cannot deliberate and examine ourselves as a public, we are not free. Hate speech, by promoting intolerance and protecting traditional patterns of bigotry from critical challenges to them from their victims, is contrary to this purpose.

Under your arguement, because some ideas can be used as justification for violence, we aught to ban religion.

That doesn't follow at all. Religion does not intrinsically promote bigotry. And even if it did, prohibiting it would probably be a means disproportionate to the end.

I suggest you learn a more effective way to articulate your point

I suggest, instead, that you learn to actually pay attention.

And don't think I didn't notice the change from "silence" to "repress."


Im glad. Thats exactly what you are doing. When you silence certian opinions, thats exactly what your doing, repressing those ideas that you dont like.


The end of free speech is a tolerant society, a society that is capable of self-examination and self-criticism. That's fundamental to the idea of democratic freedom: if we cannot deliberate and examine ourselves as a public, we are not free. Hate speech, by promoting intolerance and protecting traditional patterns of bigotry from critical challenges to them from their victims, is contrary to this purpose.




So tell me, how the fuck are their ideas open to challenge if you dont let them express their ideas?


Allowing the Klan to express their opinions, and allowing neo nazis to deny the holocaust does not promote those ideas. Instead it allows those ideas to be out there so they can be critically challenged and examined.

Silencing those ideas sends them underground. Where they cannot be challenged in the public forum.


I suggest, instead, that you learn to actually pay attention.

Oh sod off. Im not the one having a problem with various posters having a hard time understanding what my actual arguement is.

Because silencing speech is silencing ideas. Do I really need to explain why its not a good idea to repress ideas?
Yes. Go ahead.

And don't think I didn't notice the change from "silence" to "repress."
Im glad. Thats exactly what you are doing. When you silence certian opinions, thats exactly what your doing, repressing those ideas that you dont like.



so are you like considering your actual answer or something?

so are you like considering your actual answer or something?

:rolleyes:



Silencing and repressing ideas starts a dangerous trend where ideas that may be considered unpopular become banned because those with the power find those ideas "dangerous".


Also, it is impossible to enforce. How are you supposed to know what someone is thinking?

Police Officer: You there citizen, what are you thinking?

Guy: Um...uh...n-nothing officer. Just how nice of a day it is...?

Police Officer: Good! Because if you had maybe been thinking that the holocaust didnt happen or maybe something like a two party system is not the way to go, or worse that democracy might not be the best form of government, I would have to arrest you and take you to a reeducation camp to be not torture waterboarded.

We don't allow people to make up lies and then use those lies to damage the reputations of other people.

Yet we let Holocaust deniers paint the victims of the holocaust as whiney, manipulative liars.

Nice.

We don't allow people to make up lies and then use those lies to damage the reputations of other people.

Yet we let Holocaust deniers paint the victims of the holocaust as whiney, manipulative liars.

Nice.

Although I half agree with what you say, you have to remember that there's somthing called free speech and, even when Deniers are bastards, they too have a right to bastardize their arguments. You just listen to what they say and dimiss it.:D

Although I half agree with what you say, you have to remember that there's somthing called free speech and, even when Deniers are bastards, they too have a right to bastardize their arguments. You just listen to what they say and dimiss it.:D

That something called free speech has limits imposed upon it. It is not an absolute right. My point is that it is ridiculous for you to be prevented from calling your Senator (for example) a pederest, when it is not in fact true...yet you somehow have the untrammeled right to deny that someone was, in fact, a victim of the Holocaust...positively asserting that an individual or group made up the experience.

It shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be condoned either. Everyone has the right to say what they want to say. It's up to the responsible people to tell those that don't know what really happened.

When you silence certian opinions, thats exactly what your doing, repressing those ideas that you dont like.

I agree, in a sense. But "repress" is an imprecise word. As far as the particular content of my proposal--which, as you would know if you were paying attention, in no sense advocates arresting people for their thoughts or what they happen to say in conversation--"silencing" is much more appropriate... especially since my rationale has much more to do with reducing the social power of such ideas than actually forcing bigots to recant.

So tell me, how the fuck are their ideas open to challenge if you dont let them express their ideas?

I don't care about challenging the specific content of hate speech. That's not necessary--it's actually pretty trivial. (There are substantive arguments that may or may not have racist undertones, but insofar as they remain substantive--unlike Holocaust denial--I would not restrict them.)

I do care about challenging the broader ramifications of bigotry and marginalization in society, and that requires--or at least is helped by--a public discourse that is not warped by hate speech. It's hard to talk seriously about bigotry in a public forum that itself marginalizes the victims by promoting a social climate of intolerance.

Furthermore, whether or not you accept that hate speech has negative consequences in terms of our capacity to attain the ends of free speech, you should at least be willing to accept that it is not a positive enhancement: since it denies the basic assumption that we are a public that should seek the public good (as opposed to the good of only white people, or straight people, or non-Jews), it has no necessary place in the public forum. It follows that since hate speech can and does cause harm to others, it should be restricted--it is not a valuable contribution to public debate such that it deserves special protection.

Im not the one having a problem with various posters having a hard time understanding what my actual arguement is.

No, but the other posters have made a serious effort to understand, and I've been able to explain. You, on the other hand....

It shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be condoned either. Everyone has the right to say what they want to say. It's up to the responsible people to tell those that don't know what really happened.

I see what you are saying. I just don't see the point in protecting liars though. I don't feel that freedom of speech was ever intended to offer protection to liars and those that would pervert facts...history revisionists are dangerous in my opinion.

My point in thinking it probably should be illegal isn't stopping people from saying what they want, it is stopping the lazy from believing all they hear.

the holocuast is contreversial subject.......
wich many are always oppinionated about nazi right or left wing.......
the nazi right often deny it happend to cause shock and show its support against the ZOG (zionist occupied government)
while the left generaly is going to be anti-nazi and oblivious to historic evidence......
but people always preach 6000 000 million dead jews wen in fact it is
6000 000 dead people of lesser races and left wing supporters......not just the jews......
the problem in germany at the time is the same tht we hav in modern europe n england.
they had a infestation of immagrants taking jobs and being treated better by the former democratic german government the locals were sick of been treated like 2nd class citizens in there own country.....
thus put urself in there position your freedoms being taken away and the only hope is the ever growing NAZI party....
the local people didnt no of any gas camps they didnt no of any murder.....
they thought these invaders were being sent home and the people of germany were living a better life.....
these r the facts make up ur own mind!

I don't care about challenging the specific content of hate speech. That's not necessary--it's actually pretty trivial. (There are substantive arguments that may or may not have racist undertones, but insofar as they remain substantive--unlike Holocaust denial--I would not restrict them.)

I do care about challenging the broader ramifications of bigotry and marginalization in society, and that requires--or at least is helped by--a public discourse that is not warped by hate speech. It's hard to talk seriously about bigotry in a public forum that itself marginalizes the victims by promoting a social climate of intolerance.

So, you really think when some yahoo says the holocaust didnt happen, that really somehow causes the whole public to marginalize the victim? Thats absurd. It doesnt promote a climate of intolerance, because that claim is allowed to be challenged and proven wrong.

I also find it amussing how you wish to avoid climates of intolerance by banning certian ideas...

Furthermore, whether or not you accept that hate speech has negative consequences in terms of our capacity to attain the ends of free speech, you should at least be willing to accept that it is not a positive enhancement: since it denies the basic assumption that we are a public that should seek the public good (as opposed to the good of only white people, or straight people, or non-Jews), it has no necessary place in the public forum. It follows that since hate speech can and does cause harm to others, it should be restricted--it is not a valuable contribution to public debate such that it deserves special protection.

See, I disagree. I think it is very important to allow the klan and such to express their ideas in public so that those ideas that certian groups are inferior CAN be challenged. It is important for holocaust deniers to speak their peice so that their absurd claims CAN be debunked. If these ideas are silenced, they cannot be publically disproven. If they cannot be publically disproven, and if their lack of evidence and grounding in reality cannot be shown, they still exist as potentially credible ideas. How is that helpful to this society you wish to promote?

If an idea is driven underground, it cannot be shown to be a foolish idea in a very public way.

I maintain that it is very important to allow these ideas to be spoken publically so they can be debunked in a place where everyone will see it debunked; the public forum.


Look, Im not saying holocaust deniers and white supremists are anything but delusional bigoted bastards. And as a historian, revisionist history infuriates me more than anything else. But it is important for each idea to be given its time in the sun so it can be critically analyzed and scrutinized by the public and then discarded by the public as a whole. In the same way that while I find the religious delusional and often times bigoted bastards, I dont support banning religion from the public forum of discussion.

Im not in favor of making my pet peeves crimes.

So, you really think when some yahoo says the holocaust didnt happen, that really somehow causes the whole public to marginalize the victim?

No.

Again, if you had paid attention, you'd have noted that I advocate restricting Holocaust denial only as a symbolic contribution to an effort against hate speech in general.

I also find it amussing how you wish to avoid climates of intolerance by banning certian ideas...

It only doesn't make sense if you abstract "tolerance" from its actual material manifestation.

See, I disagree. I think it is very important to allow the klan and such to express their ideas in public so that those ideas that certian groups are inferior CAN be challenged.

There's no substantive content in hate speech that needs to be challenged. Its root is not rational, but social.

It is important for holocaust deniers to speak their peice so that their absurd claims CAN be debunked.

Their claims have been debunked, over and over again. The information's out there. The scholarly consensus is clear. The debate is decided.

Why should we assume, against the evidence, that more debunking would help?

If these ideas are silenced, they cannot be publically disproven.

That would be the case if they had real, substantive content--if they represented a meaningful challenge that required specific consideration and response. But they don't.

Look, Im not saying holocaust deniers and white supremists are anything but delusional bigoted bastards. And as a historian, revisionist history infuriates me more than anything else.

That's nice.

But it is important for each idea to be given its time in the sun so it can be critically analyzed and scrutinized by the public and then discarded by the public as a whole.

Great. Thankfully, both racism and Holocaust denial have been given their "time in the sun"... indeed, quite a bit more than that.

Im not in favor of making my pet peeves crimes.

Neither am I.

It only doesn't make sense if you abstract "tolerance" from its actual material manifestation.

Promoting tolerance cannot happen through legal action. And forcing the intolerant underground does nothing to end their intolerance. In fact, it just makes them bitter.



There's no substantive content in hate speech that needs to be challenged. Its root is not rational, but social.

It can, however, be shown to be the stupid, bigoted idea it is in a very public way.



Their claims have been debunked, over and over again. The information's out there. The scholarly consensus is clear. The debate is decided.

Why should we assume, against the evidence, that more debunking would help?

Because if you just ban it, it goes underground, where the public debunking stops. And then you wont have scholars dealing with it. You'll have yahoos reading the works from people publishing from their basements, and these people wont know any better. Hell, they'll probably think that because it isnt talked about in public, it is a conspirecy.

Banning it from public discoursewont make it go away. You should know that. And it has the potential to cause more harm than good. Thats why banning it is pointless. It doesnt accomplish anything good. Symbolic laws are nice, and by nice I mean an awful idea because they dont do anything, and this symbolic law wont do anything but drive it underground where the claims made cant be refuted.


That would be the case if they had real, substantive content--if they represented a meaningful challenge that required specific consideration and response. But they don't.

Well, first of all, who are we to decide what ideas merit public discussion? Its a dangerous game to play. Ill be the first to admit that banning holocaust denial would be largelly harmless, but banning ideas from the public sphere is dangerous for reasons Ive already mentioned.




All this, and I garuntee you any legistlation banning it would result in it being struck down by the supreme court, as it not being protected speech would be a tough case to sell.

Promoting tolerance cannot happen through legal action.

Then let's legalize murder. ;)

And forcing the intolerant underground does nothing to end their intolerance.

The point is not to "end their intolerance." Indeed, if it were, I would oppose it--that is thought control. The point is to reduce the social power of their intolerance.

It can, however, be shown to be the stupid, bigoted idea it is in a very public way.

And why do you think that would do any good? It's been done already, after all. Repeatedly.

Because if you just ban it, it goes underground, where the public debunking stops.

Why do you think the public debunking stops? Does information about the Holocaust suddenly disappear?

You'll have yahoos reading the works from people publishing from their basements, and these people wont know any better.

Yeah, they don't know any better now either. I don't know why you think adding to the overwhelming weight of the evidence will change anything.

Symbolic laws are nice, and by nice I mean an awful idea because they dont do anything

You miss the sense of "symbolic" here.

Anti-Semitism doesn't have the social power it once did... and Holocaust denial doesn't actually do much in this country. But as a society making a public commitment to opposing bigotry, we should be willing to stand against it even when it merely poses a potential threat. (As long as it is ACTUAL bigotry, ACTUAL hate speech. That definition should be narrow. I'm aware of the dangers of a slippery slope.)

Straight people, to my knowledge, are not the victims of any large-scale employment discrimination... but laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation protect them too.

Well, first of all, who are we to decide what ideas merit public discussion?

The public, acting democratically?

It should, of course, be subject to constitutional limitation.

Ill be the first to admit that banning holocaust denial would be largelly harmless, but banning ideas from the public sphere is dangerous for reasons Ive already mentioned.

The only reasons you've mentioned have been clearly and explicitly relevant to Holocaust denial.

All this, and I garuntee you any legistlation banning it would result in it being struck down by the supreme court,

Probably, yes.

Then let's legalize murder. ;)

Nice Godwin.


Then let's legalize murder. ;)



The point is not to "end their intolerance." Indeed, if it were, I would oppose it--that is thought control. The point is to reduce the social power of their intolerance.


This makes more sense. Why didnt you say that earlier?:p


And why do you think that would do any good? It's been done already, after all. Repeatedly.

I do, I think you can never do too much of a good thing.


Why do you think the public debunking stops? Does information about the Holocaust suddenly disappear?

No, but any new arguement that surfaces wont be debunked, because we wont know about it.

Anti-Semitism doesn't have the social power it once did... and Holocaust denial doesn't actually do much in this country. But as a society making a public commitment to opposing bigotry, we should be willing to stand against it even when it merely poses a potential threat. (As long as it is ACTUAL bigotry, ACTUAL hate speech. That definition should be narrow. I'm aware of the dangers of a slippery slope.)

No matter how narrow a definition is, it will still scare me. It can still be abused.

The public, acting democratically?

It should, of course, be subject to constitutional limitation.

Tyranny of the majority eh?;)

The only reasons you've mentioned have been clearly and explicitly relevant to Holocaust denial.

Because that what the focal point of the discussion is. Everything else has just been examples.

Probably, yes.

Then whats the point?

Nice Godwin.

Godwin? What does Hitler have to do with anything?

This makes more sense. Why didnt you say that earlier?:p

"especially since my rationale has much more to do with reducing the social power of such ideas than actually forcing bigots to recant."

;)

I do, I think you can never do too much of a good thing.

But you can use the wrong means to achieve a good thing. And if you stubbornly hold by them even when they don't work, you can impede better efforts to achieve that good thing.

No, but any new arguement that surfaces wont be debunked, because we wont know about it.

If it still retains such influence as to be worthy of concern, why wouldn't we know about it?

It can still be abused.

Anything can be abused. That's the way of the world.

Tyranny of the majority eh?;)

Well, if it were "tyranny"....

Then whats the point?

Neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court's interpretation of it need be static. And, in any case, this is an international forum.

Godwin? What does Hitler have to do with anything?


Um, well, this is about the holocaust. No seriously, Godwin was a type o.

But you can use the wrong means to achieve a good thing. And if you stubbornly hold by them even when they don't work, you can impede better efforts to achieve that good thing.

But thats where we disagree. I dont think banning it is a better idea.


If it still retains such influence as to be worthy of concern, why wouldn't we know about it?

Because it was banned from the public forum?


Anything can be abused. That's the way of the world.

Not to the extent of thought control.

And, in any case, this is an international forum.

And international law is adhered to all the time...oh wait. Again, even if banning it was a good idea, it is pointless because it wont do anything.

Um, well, this is about the holocaust. No seriously, Godwin was a type o.

And that has what, exactly, to do with my comment that prohibiting murder is using legal means to enforce tolerance?

But thats where we disagree. I dont think banning it is a better idea.

But you don't advocate passivity, either... you have been making the tactical argument that the best way to challenge extreme bigotry is to have it out in the open.

And your argument in favor of the means was... what? That we can't have too much of a good thing? But the good thing is the end, not the means... if the means don't work, stubbornly abiding by them is counterproductive.

Because it was banned from the public forum?

But you have insisted that that doesn't matter, that it will just move underground and have as much power as before... indeed, more.

So why wouldn't we know about it, if it could remain so influential?

Not to the extent of thought control.

I don't advocate thought control.

And international law is adhered to all the time...oh wait.

What the hell? I didn't say that we should ban Holocaust denial on the international level. But it's absurd to say that debate about banning Holocaust denial should be confined to the limits of what is immediately possible in US politics when the discussion is being held on a forum with posters from around the world.

And that has what, exactly, to do with my comment that prohibiting murder is using legal means to enforce tolerance?


There is a big difference between murder and thinking there is a jewish conspirecy. One causes bodily harm. One just hurts feelings. Thats why the two are not comparable. If you then murder a jew because you think hes out to get you, then you have crossed a very clear, defined line.

But you don't advocate passivity, either... you have been making the tactical argument that the best way to challenge extreme bigotry is to have it out in the open.

And your argument in favor of the means was... what? That we can't have too much of a good thing? But the good thing is the end, not the means... if the means don't work, stubbornly abiding by them is counterproductive.

Im saying for now the best way to deal with holocaust denial and racism is through education and public discussion and critical analysis of these ideas. Im saying I dont think banning them is better than what we are doing now to deal with holocaust denial.


But you have insisted that that doesn't matter, that it will just move underground and have as much power as before... indeed, more.

So why wouldn't we know about it, if it could remain so influential?

Because its influence might not be known about it until its too late. Because it was banned. Kill the weed before it spreads.

What the hell? I didn't say that we should ban Holocaust denial on the international level. But it's absurd to say that debate about banning Holocaust denial should be confined to the limits of what is immediately possible in US politics when the discussion is being held on a forum with posters from around the world.


Ok, then I return to my originial statement. In the context of the US, banning holocaust denial is a waste of energy because it wont accomplish anything and it wont last. I dont know if it would survive in other countries. I am not familier with those other countries judicial systems.

I think Holocaust deniers are morons. But it shouldn't be illegal to deny it.

Imagine if the USA made all of the 9/11 conspiracies illegal...

There is a big difference between murder and thinking there is a jewish conspirecy. One causes bodily harm. One just hurts feelings.

No, it doesn't just hurt feelings. Hate speech represents social power: it is itself repressive and marginalizing. Open, public bigotry constricts the social space available to the victims to participate in society. It represents a threat, an attack, even if it is purely on the implicit level.

Im saying for now the best way to deal with holocaust denial and racism is through education and public discussion and critical analysis of these ideas.

We've had plenty of that already. The conclusion of historians on Holocaust denial is now indisputable, undeniable. Why would more help anything?

Because its influence might not be known about it until its too late. Because it was banned.

How intricate a conspiracy do you want to assert these underground Holocaust deniers will manage?

I dont know if it would survive in other countries.

Obviously it would, because laws against Holocaust denial exist elsewhere.

No, it doesn't just hurt feelings. Hate speech represents social power: it is itself repressive and marginalizing. Open, public bigotry constricts the social space available to the victims to participate in society. It represents a threat, an attack, even if it is purely on the implicit level.

But if you are regarded as nothing but a loon, you have no social power. The arguement that allowing holocaust denial gives them social power and denies it to the victim doesnt hold.


We've had plenty of that already. The conclusion of historians on Holocaust denial is now indisputable, undeniable. Why would more help anything?

Im not saying any more would help. Im saying that banning it is not a better idea. Doing nothing is better than doing something that isnt a good idea.


How intricate a conspiracy do you want to assert these underground Holocaust deniers will manage?

We're talking in hypotheticals.

Obviously it would, because laws against Holocaust denial exist elsewhere.

Germany, Austria, and Italy are not the rest of the world. The rest of the world does not have the same judicial system.

But if you are regarded as nothing but a loon, you have no social power.

And in a perfect world, we would need no hate speech laws for exactly that reason. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws against murder either.

The fact, however, is that hate speech tends to correspond to very real social prejudices... it's not just the rhetoric of a loon.

We're talking in hypotheticals.

Yes, we are. But if you want to propose a hypothetical consequence as a good reason not to do something, it should have some connection to reality, to what actually would happen.

Germany, Austria, and Italy are not the rest of the world.

But they are part of it.

And in a perfect world, we would need no hate speech laws for exactly that reason. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need laws against murder either.

The fact, however, is that hate speech tends to correspond to very real social prejudices... it's not just the rhetoric of a loon.





Holocaust denial I think is not mainstream. I think most people regard them as loons. I think if you really think the holocaust didnt happen, I think you probably have no social power because you are a loon, and widely recognized as one.


Anyway, I got class, so this has got to be one of those agree to disagree things;)

<snip>
Anyway, I got class, <snip>

Liar!!
;) :p

Holocaust denial I think is not mainstream. I think most people regard them as loons. I think if you really think the holocaust didnt happen, I think you probably have no social power because you are a loon, and widely recognized as one.

Yeah, that's about where I dropped it too. If Jews are a marginalized group who feel intimidated (or have their interests damaged in some other way, are harmed) by the denial of part of their history ... the same principle has to apply to other groups who are as marginal or more.

If banning untruths starts here, it can't stop here. So it can't start.

Anyway, making a special case for Jews plays right into the hands of whackos who believe in a Jewish conspiracy controlling government and/or the media.

It shouldn't be illegal because that would be a violation of free speech, but it should be very legal to kick someon's ass if they do try to deny it.

It shouldn't be illegal because that would be a violation of free speech, but it should be very legal to kick someone's ass if they do try to deny it.Why do you folks all dwell on "free speech" as if that were something sacred?
Prisons are so full because all freedoms have their limits. Why is freedom of expression an exception??

Why do you folks all dwell on "free speech" as if that were something sacred?
Prisons are so full because all freedoms have their limits. Why is freedom of expression an exception??

Because we folks like freedom of speech. So much that it's actually an explicitly protected legal right in most Western democracies.

And that's a bit of a slippery slope; you might as well be saying, "Prisons are so full because all freedoms have their limits. Why is the freedom to not be tortured, raped and murdered by the Gestapo an exception?" The fact that there are limits is not in and of itself a good argument for making more, or harsher limits.

No, it doesn't just hurt feelings. Hate speech represents social power: it is itself repressive and marginalizing. Open, public bigotry constricts the social space available to the victims to participate in society. It represents a threat, an attack, even if it is purely on the implicit level.

Ummm... Think we might be getting off track here... There's a difference between saying that a terrible atrocity never happened to a particular race and saying that that race is inferior. There may or may not be a place for laws on hate speech, but where do you get off calling HD hate speech?

Its plainly a conspiracy theory. It never helps to outlaw conspiracy theories. If you say yes to making laws on one theory then why not other theories? It's too slippery a slope.

At the end of the day, it's not the governments business to mandate thoughts, no matter how stupid.

Why do you folks all dwell on "free speech" as if that were something sacred?

Yeah, I noticed that. It's an almost religious statement. Voice rises hysterically, "praise the constitution" ... end of subject.

Prisons are so full because all freedoms have their limits.

Actually, US prisons are so full because of laws criminalizing drug use and supply. If they weren't so full (and getting fuller) more of the budget could be spent on rehabilitating "criminals" who actually did something to harm someone else, or catching the damn criminals in the first place.

Why is freedom of expression an exception??

That's a good question, but I doubt you have the patience to get to the bottom of it. Whenever anyone tries discussing anything with you, you make some inflammatory statement and go talk to whoever bites on that, instead.

Question for clarification: If I believed that only six Jews died in the Holocaust and that the rest were just mental projections created by godlike Jew-powers as an attempt to garner sympathy and gain the resources they needed to bombard the Earth from their space stations at the other end of the Milky Way Galaxy to fulfill the will of their galactic overlords, a reptilian race known as the Jehovians, would I be considered a Holocaust Denier? Or would that be overlooked in lieu of my much more pressing issues of dementia?

Inspired by the Auschwitz thread.

Should Holocaust denial be illegal, or should it be protected as free speech?

Discuss.

Of course. You can't decide what things are protected by Free speech and what aren't. It's free speech, what the hell kinda place would put restrictions on free speech? It doesn't make sense.

Question for clarification: If I believed that only six Jews died in the Holocaust and that the rest were just mental projections created by godlike Jew-powers as an attempt to garner sympathy and gain the resources they needed to bombard the Earth from their space stations at the other end of the Milky Way Galaxy to fulfill the will of their galactic overlords, a reptilian race known as the Jehovians, would I be considered a Holocaust Denier? Or would that be overlooked in lieu of my much more pressing issues of dementia?

If you told me that in all seriousness on the street, I really think I would laugh. But yes, that does count as Holocaust denial, and with certain laws in place, that opinion would be censured.

No, but holocausts should.

No, but holocausts should.

It is however, the Genocide Convention Treaty is hardly ever enforced and it should be enforced.

There may or may not be a place for laws on hate speech, but where do you get off calling HD hate speech?

Oh, I don't know... perhaps because it necessarily assumes both a very intricate (and quite perverse) Jewish plot?

Or because the context in which it is used is nearly always to delegitimize Jewish suffering? (See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Or because it is so absurd that it is difficult to see how it could gain much influence without bigotry?

Oh, I don't know... perhaps because it necessarily assumes both a very intricate (and quite perverse) Jewish plot?

Or because the context in which it is used is nearly always to delegitimize Jewish suffering? (See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Or because it is so absurd that it is difficult to see how it could gain much influence without bigotry?

HD doesn't necessarily imply that a Jewish plot is also involved, though it frequently does. One could also claim that the Holocaust was created as a US propaganda technique to help fight the war, for example. And it's not always used to delegitimize Jewish suffering. Prussian Blue, for example, uses it in an attempt to rebuild the image of the white man. It's all bullshit, to be sure, but it doesn't necessarily have to be anti-semetic bullshit.

If you told me that in all seriousness on the street, I really think I would laugh. But yes, that does count as Holocaust denial, and with certain laws in place, that opinion would be censured.

Let's say I wrote books and somehow managed to get them published and famous. Would they call me a Denier or just bat-shit insane? Both, perhaps?

It does not take a god to determine that something is not based on facts.

Except, of course, that Holocaust Denial is based on facts.

There is the fact that the Nazi records are incomplete, and can be interpreted in multiple ways.

There is the fact that several photographic experts have claimed that the pictures of concentration camp survivors and corpses at the death camps appear either staged or faked.

There is the fact, undisputed, that the allies had good reason to make the Nazi regime out as even worse than they did.

There is the fact, undisputed, that several of these camps were first overrun by the Russians, and were not examined by Western forces for some time - making the events there vulnerable to the interpretation and modification of Stalin and his agents, who are not exactly paragons of truth.

Now, to anyone versed in the scientific and historical processes, these minor objections will be instantlt drowned out in the masses of data from other sources, with reliabilities ranging from poor to indisputable, that indicate that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen.

But your ludicrous contention that Denial is "not based on facts" clearly indicates that you have no actual knowledge of what you are talking about.

There is the fact that the Nazi records are incomplete, and can be interpreted in multiple ways.That is a fact, however it says nothing about the issue at hand.

There is the fact that several photographic experts have claimed that the pictures of concentration camp survivors and corpses at the death camps appear either staged or faked.So claims have been made. Have they been substantiated or verified? Claims are not facts.

There is the fact, undisputed, that the allies had good reason to make the Nazi regime out as even worse than they did.Taking this to assume that the allies staged or faked camp scenes is pure speculation.

There is the fact, undisputed, that several of these camps were first overrun by the Russians, and were not examined by Western forces for some time - making the events there vulnerable to the interpretation and modification of Stalin and his agents, who are not exactly paragons of truth.Are you implying that the Russians might have staged the holocaust? Could you please provide evidence for this?

Oh, I don't know... perhaps because it necessarily assumes both a very intricate (and quite perverse) Jewish plot?

Or because the context in which it is used is nearly always to delegitimize Jewish suffering? (See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Or because it is so absurd that it is difficult to see how it could gain much influence without bigotry?

If you had read much more of the other posts on this subject you may have learnt that denying the holocaust doesn't necessarily mean that you are calling the jewish people (or some jewish people) the instigators of a particular conspiracy (i.e. Allies adding more of a human element to stabilizing the region). (don't think i'm a HDer i'm just pointing out that there are other paths of inquiry)

As for the other points. You just pointed out what I have already stated; holocaust denial often occurs alongside some form of hate speech. If that is always the case, then one would always have more of a legitimate reason t lock these buggers up. Why focus on one element of their hate speech?

And as I, and others, have said before, this isn't just a stand alone law; It's and invitation for other laws about historical correctness. Once others say, "I'm sick of these crazies saying man never landed on the moon, or that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy (also a large loss of life involved, and much more recent too), why not lock up these guys too." we'll be in a place where we'll lose the opportunity of a line of inquiry about what's going on in recent history, and that's just not healthy in democracy.

Most of all, I feel that jail space is better to be used for real criminals. I wouldn't want m tax money to go towards locking up thought criminals.

HD doesn't necessarily imply that a Jewish plot is also involved, though it frequently does.

No, I'm pretty sure that's intrinsic to its nature.

One could also claim that the Holocaust was created as a US propaganda technique to help fight the war, for example.

Yes, you could. But it would require extensive cooperation from a Jewish conspiracy.

If you had read much more of the other posts on this subject you may have learnt that denying the holocaust doesn't necessarily mean that you are calling the jewish people (or some jewish people) the instigators of a particular conspiracy

Why are you so obsessed with "necessarily"?

Dealing with the material reality of bigotry isn't a matter of logical relations (necessity), but material ones. It doesn't matter if Holocaust denial in the abstract isn't anti-Semitic if, in the real world, that's how it actually manifests itself.

You just pointed out what I have already stated; holocaust denial often occurs alongside some form of hate speech.

The trouble is that it doesn't. To use again the example of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nothing he's said, to my knowledge, has been directly anti-Semitic. But the intentions behind his questioning of the Holocaust are nevertheless clear.

Once others say, "I'm sick of these crazies saying man never landed on the moon, or that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy (also a large loss of life involved, and much more recent too), why not lock up these guys too." we'll be in a place where we'll lose the opportunity of a line of inquiry about what's going on in recent history, and that's just not healthy in democracy.

But none of those have any credible relation to hate speech. The crucial issue isn't "craziness" at all.

Most of all, I feel that jail space is better to be used for real criminals. I wouldn't want m tax money to go towards locking up thought criminals.

Well, that's nice. Thankfully, nobody is suggesting imprisoning thought criminals.

:rolleyes:

[quote]Are you implying that the Russians might have staged the holocaust? Could you please provide evidence for this?

lern 2 read plz.

What's he's saying is that, if there had not been the overwhelming evidence to support the Holocaust, this would have been a valid point in questioning it. The Soviet Union was not known for truth, so it would not have been out of the question for them to do some tampering of the evidence.

Of course we do have enough evidence that such tampering, if it happened at all, has little impact on our knowledge of the event. The point he's making is that HD isn't always baseless conjecture and is often an interpretation of certain facts.

It's just that most of the facts go the other way on this one.

The Soviet Union was not known for truth...As if any of the war participants were known for truth. What kind of reasoning is that? Germans (that is the "ordinary" Germans) themselves had visited the camps after the war was over, and what they saw was surely not staged by the Soviets.

If someone wants to think and say something stupid that should be their right. Likewise it should be my right to ignore them and most likely anything else that they might have to say. Indefinetly.

That something called free speech has limits imposed upon it. It is not an absolute right. My point is that it is ridiculous for you to be prevented from calling your Senator (for example) a pederest, when it is not in fact true...yet you somehow have the untrammeled right to deny that someone was, in fact, a victim of the Holocaust...positively asserting that an individual or group made up the experience.

Yes, free speech has limits, or it should have limits. Some people do not see that. Riches are poorly distributed, and I agree, it's ridiculous that you can't call a senator a pederest but have to listen to moronic Holocaust Deniers spew lies about something that is documented and that any sensible human being knows. The Holocaust was real, and still is to those who survive it and to the families that lost loved one on the concentration camps. It's absurd to deny it. Alas, there are those who deny the Holocaust. The best course of action, in my opinion, is to just ignore them.

The best course of action, in my opinion, is to just ignore them.But there are people who will believe the shit because they are not educated enough to detect the lies. Just ignoring it is insufficient.

But there are people who will believe the shit because they are not educated enough to detect the lies. Just ignoring it is insufficient.
But then we run up against the problem of legislating against lies or even misinformation. You and I have already discussed in this thread the problem that certainly not all Holocaust deniers are lying; there are people who genuinely believe the Holocaust never happened. They are not deliberately misinforming people, they are telling people what they think is the truth.

So, you propose that we legislate against lies, but this is totally unwieldy and would be completely unenforceable. Moreover, I have already (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13547387&postcount=225) discussed with you how impracticable such legislation would be; sometimes we need to lie. Indeed, sometimes it is good to lie.

Further than this, to combat those Holocaust deniers who genuinely believe what they are saying, you’d have to legislate against individuals spouting unintentionally false statements; a completely mad set of affairs.

But there are people who will believe the shit because they are not educated enough to detect the lies. Just ignoring it is insufficient.

A sad truth but, what else can we do? Their lies are, unfortunately, protected by the Constitution, and what they say is considered free speech. Of course, free speech must have certain limits, but in the long run, what can we do besides trying to educate the uneducated?

obviously it cant just be something made up, how can so many people agree of the same truth? so it obviously had to happen, because people dont want to accept that or dont believe it, i think they shouldnt be punished. (i am probually stateing what many people have said, but i wanted to say it.)

obviously it cant just be something made up, how can so many people agree of the same truth? so it obviously had to happen, because people dont want to accept that or dont believe it, i think they shouldnt be punished. (i am probually stateing what many people have said, but i wanted to say it.)

What do you think the appropriate punishment for ignorance should be?

there are people who genuinely believe the Holocaust never happened.There is no way to learn about the holocaust's non-occurrence in a normal educational environment. To deny the holocaust means to deny all evidence for it. And out of what motivation would someone deny that? To remove guilt from the Germans? To invalidate the claims of victims and their surviving relatives? To deny the suffering of Jews, gays, Sinti & Roma, communists, etc ?

Btw, not knowing about the holocaust is not the same as denying it, i.e. claiming it did not happen..

Are you implying that the Russians might have staged the holocaust? Could you please provide evidence for this?

It could, in theory, be perceived as partially plausible, given the Russian penchant for the use of "Potemkin Village" type facilities. The classic example being what they did at Magadan in May of 1944, in preparation for Wallace's visit. If they could cover up a site of such terrifying barbarity so rapidly, one would not be beyond the realm of reason to ask if they could create one just as easily.

Fortunately, the immense and vast body of knowledge and evidence that has been accrued since the end of the war easily overwhelms the legitimacy of this criticism of the reality of the holocaust, and the industrialized murder of some eleven to twelve million people. I mean, it's like trying to drown a well with a single stone, but the well happens to be the size of the Pacific Ocean.

There is no way to learn about the holocaust’s non-occurrence in a normal educational environment.
That’s broadly true, but many are not educated in a ‘normal educational environment’. And many simply don’t accept evidence from sources that they believe to be biased and corrupted.

To maintain that all these people are liars is a rather foolish move.

That’s broadly true, but many are not educated in a ‘normal educational environment’. And many simply don’t accept evidence from sources that they believe to be biased and corrupted.

To maintain that all these people are liars is a rather foolish move.Only if a kid grows up in a HD's household or is indoctrinated by a HD will it actually believe in the holocaust's non-occurrence.
Any other kid will learn about the vast amounts of evidence and documentation.

Any other kid will learn about the vast amounts of evidence and documentation.

Depends on the school!

It shouldn't be illegal. But we should offer these pleasent Holocaust-denying folk complimentary phsychiactric help. Or ask them very kindly to headbutt a bullet.

Depends on the school!Only if you drop out before 6th grade or so.

Only if a kid grows up in a HD’s household or is indoctrinated by a HD will it actually believe in the holocaust’s non-occurrence.
Which strengthens my point that not all Holocaust deniers are liars.

Which strengthens my point that not all Holocaust deniers are liars.Yeah, delusional retards growing up in a box really make the big exception to the universal education minimum.

Yeah, delusional retards growing up in a box really make the big exception to the universal education minimum.
I would hazard a guess that those who are lying are the exception. It’d be a strange person who knew the full weight of evidence against the deniers position, yet still took up their account.

I would hazard a guess that those who are lying are the exception. It’d be a strange person who knew the full weight of evidence against the deniers position, yet still took up their account.It's almost like being a devout Christian or Jew, no chance to escape the lies of the parents and no brains to refute the lies by themselves.

]It's almost like being a devout Christian or Jew,[/b] no chance to escape the lies of the parents and no brains to refute the lies by themselves.

We know you hate religion but please, you have no evidence to prove your assertion. So grow up.

We know you hate religion but please, you have no evidence to prove your assertion. So grow up.

And members of religions have no proof of their assertions, so you grow up. ;)

And members of religions have no proof of their assertions, so you grow up. ;)

I never stated we did so there :p

I never stated we did so there :p

Well, fine then....

*storms off in a huff*
:D

It's almost like being a devout Christian or Jew, no chance to escape the lies of the parents and no brains to refute the lies by themselves.

It's pretty immature to take whatever chance you can get to demean something you don't agree with. Anyway, did you mention Judaism because this is a Holocaust thread, which would be incredibly rude, or is it just a coincidence?

It's pretty immature to take whatever chance you can get to demean something you don't agree with. Anyway, did you mention Judaism because this is a Holocaust thread, which would be incredibly rude, or is it just a coincidence?

I can answer that for him, yes and no, more because UB is very anti-Abrahamic religions.

'Yes. Implicitly anti-Semitic, it is a form of hate speech, and permitting its propagation corrupts rather than expands the public forum'

It isn't 'implicitly anti-Semitic' at all. Factually, official opinion on the details of the holocaust can be disputed on historical grounds, albeit dubious ones. It should not be illegalized anywhere, although it is understandable in certain places such as Germany. To persecute somebody for holding beliefs - whether they co-inside with mainstream opinion or not - is abhorrent on both a practical and principle level. You're quite literally into the realm of Thought Crime, and believe me, it's a slippery slope.

Also, it's best to let these people speak their minds, not only because all people deserve the same right to free speech but because that way they don't become martyrs and their cases can be dismantled and demolished factually and intellectually for everybody to see.

Full marks to the Oxford Union Debating Society in Britain for allowing Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak there.

Make it illegal on NSG. Quit it already. Everyone has presented more than great arguments as to why it can´t be banned. It won´t be. Sad, but hate speech, albeit having limits, is protected under the Constitution, wether we like it or not.

It isn't 'implicitly anti-Semitic' at all. Factually, official opinion on the details of the holocaust can be disputed on historical grounds, albeit dubious ones.

Yes, we can dispute the "official opinion" on anything if we try hard enough... but in a case like this one, you have to ask why people bother. And it's not really a mystery: because it serves the ends of anti-Semites and Neo-Nazis.

To persecute somebody for holding beliefs - whether they co-inside with mainstream opinion or not - is abhorrent on both a practical and principle level.

Thankfully, nobody's advocated that.

Also, it's best to let these people speak their minds, not only because all people deserve the same right to free speech but because that way they don't become martyrs and their cases can be dismantled and demolished factually and intellectually for everybody to see.

Already been done. Dismantling and demolishing their case just isn't a very effective tactic when the opinion isn't about reason and empirical evidence.

It’s almost like being a devout Christian or Jew, no chance to escape the lies of the parents and no brains to refute the lies by themselves.
Once again, the parents are not lying.

Lying requires knowledge of the real truth, or at least knowledge that what one professes is not true. Those who preach to friends or family members are not lying, no matter what you think of the ‘truth’ of Christianity, because they sincerely believe that what they say is true.

To use another example, if my friend was to claim that the rocks on Mars were red, and he sincerely believed what he was saying, it would be foolish and wrong to call him a liar simply because he had not been informed that Martian rocks are only covered with a thin layer of reddish dust and are not red themselves. My friend is not lying about the colour of Martian rocks; to do that, he would have to have known that Martian rocks weren’t red and to have professed a statement opposite to that effect to be true.

Big difference.

We’ve covered this twice in this thread now. Are you willing to stop calling religious believers ‘liars’?

We’ve covered this twice in this thread now. Are you willing to stop calling religious believers ‘liars’?

3-1 says no :D

We’ve covered this twice in this thread now. Are you willing to stop calling religious believers ‘liars’?

He must think it's all some conspiracy the parents are in on; then they'd be liars. He should share his knowledge with us ;).

No, because it is a basis of human rights to believe whatever the hell they want.... No matter how stupid.

No, because it is a basis of human rights to believe whatever the hell they want.... No matter how stupid.wtf?

Are you willing to stop calling religious believers ‘liars’?No. Spreading lies means to be a liar.

wtf?

Basis.... Root word base.

1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.
4. a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like: The nurse is paid on an hourly basis. He was chosen on the basis of his college grades.
5. Mathematics. a set of linearly independent elements of a given vector space having the property that every element of the space can be written as a linear combination of the elements of the set.

No. Spreading lies means to be a liar.

Can you prove that what they are spreading are lies?

Or since you already have this preconcieved notion that anyone who believes in (an abrahamic) religion is inherently evil, you just automatically know they are lying?

Can you prove that what they are spreading are lies?

Or since you already have this preconcieved notion that anyone who believes in (an abrahamic) religion is inherently evil, you just automatically know they are lying?
Belief is of course subjective, and when exposed to modern science and the modern world in general no one can be fully religious in the full meaning of the word, at some level all religious people these days consciously or consciously know their ideas are contradictory, many try to rationalize as 'tradition' or 'culture', Catholics and the like are more prone to this. Fundamentalism is much different, it's a militant opposition to modernity, the arts and social progress generally, for them religion is beyond what it is for the traditionalists, for the fundamentalist it's a mishmash of politics, religion and ideology.

Basis.... Root word base.

1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.
4. a basic fact, amount, standard, etc., used in making computations, reaching conclusions, or the like: The nurse is paid on an hourly basis. He was chosen on the basis of his college grades.
5. Mathematics. a set of linearly independent elements of a given vector space having the property that every element of the space can be written as a linear combination of the elements of the set.However, the granting of human rights has nothing to do with freedom of belief.